[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 33 (Friday, February 16, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12666-12741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01064]
[[Page 12665]]
Vol. 89
Friday,
No. 33
February 16, 2024
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 52 and 97
Supplemental Air Plan Actions: Interstate Transport of Air Pollution
for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Supplemental Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' Requirements for the 2015
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 12666]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 97
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663; EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668; EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0402; FRL-
11159-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AW09
Supplemental Air Plan Actions: Interstate Transport of Air
Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards and Supplemental Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' Requirements
for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental proposed rule and withdrawal of
proposed rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially
disapprove and partially approve State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submissions from Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee
regarding interstate transport for the 2015 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This action also proposes a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New
Mexico, and Tennessee to address these States' obligations to eliminate
significant contribution to nonattainment, or interference with
maintenance, of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. The FIP would
require fossil fuel-fired power plants in the five states to
participate in an allowance-based ozone season nitrogen oxides
emissions trading program beginning in 2025. The Agency is also
proposing to establish nitrogen oxides emissions limitations applicable
to certain other industrial stationary sources in Arizona with a
compliance year no earlier than 2027. Finally, this action also
includes proposed technical corrections to the regulatory text
previously promulgated to establish comparable FIP requirements for
emissions sources in other states.
DATES:
Comments: Comments must be received on or before May 16, 2024.
Public hearing: The EPA will hold a virtual public hearing on March
4, 2024. Please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
additional information on the public hearing.
Information collection request: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), comments on the information collection provisions are best
assured of consideration if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
receives a copy of your comments on or before March 18, 2024.
ADDRESSES:
Comments: You may send comments, identified as Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2023-0402, by any of the following methods: Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Include Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0402 in
the subject line of the message.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Hearing: The virtual hearing will be held at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-2015-ozone-naaqs. The public hearing will convene at 9:00
a.m. and end at 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) or 1 hour after the last
registered speaker has spoken. The EPA will make every effort to
accommodate all individuals interested in providing oral testimony. A
lunch break is scheduled from 12:00 p.m. until 1:00 p.m. Refer to the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for additional information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Uher, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C539-04),
Environmental Protection Agency, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5534; email
address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public participation: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0402, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the
docket. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit to the EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system).
There are three dockets supporting this action, EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-
0402, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668. All comments
regarding information in any of these dockets are to be made in Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0402.
The index to the docket for this action, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2023-0402, is available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov.
While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available due to docket file size
restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).
Preamble Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations
The following are abbreviations of terms used in the preamble.
2016v1 2016 Version 1 Emissions Modeling Platform
2016v2 2016 Version 2 Emissions Modeling Platform
2016v3 2016 Version 3 Emissions Modeling Platform
ARP Acid Rain Program
ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
CAA or Act Clean Air Act
CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFB Circulating Fluidized Bed Units
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CSAPR Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
DAHS Data Acquisition and Handling System
EAV Equivalent Annualized Values
EGU Electric Generating Unit
EHD Environmental Health Department
EIA Economic Impact Assessment
EPA or the Agency United States Environmental Protection Agency
FIP Federal Implementation Plan
g/hp-hr Grams per horsepower per hour
Group 2 allowances CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
allowances
Group 2 trading program CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
Trading Program
Group 3 allowances CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances
Group 3 Trading Program CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
Trading Program
ICR Information Collection Request
IPM Integrated Planning Model
LNB Low-NOX Burners
MJO Multi-Jurisdictional Organization
MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
MW Megawatts
NAA Nonattainment Area
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
[[Page 12667]]
NMED New Mexico Environment Department
Non-EGU Non-Electric Generating Unit
NODA Notice of Data Availability
NOX Nitrogen Oxides
NSCR Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction
OMB United States Office of Management and Budget
PBI Proprietary Business Information
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
ppmvd parts per million by volume, dry
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PV Present Value
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RICE Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
SC-CO2 Social Cost of Carbon
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SIL Significant Impact Level
SIP State Implementation Plan
SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
TAS Treatment as State
TDEC Tennessee Department of Environmental Control
TSD Technical Support Document
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Violating-Monitor Receptors Violating-Monitor Maintenance-Only
Receptors
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
B. Costs and Benefits
II. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. What action is the Agency taking?
C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
D. Severability
E. Public Participation
1. Written Comments
2. Participation in Virtual Public Hearing
III. Background
A. Description of Statutory Background
B. Description of the EPA's 4-Step Interstate Transport
Regulatory Process
C. The EPA's Ozone Transport Modeling
D. The EPA's Approach To Evaluating Interstate Transport for the
2015 Ozone NAAQS
1. Selection of Analytic Years
2. Step 1 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
3. Step 2 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
4. Step 3 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
5. Step 4 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
IV. SIP Submissions Addressing Interstate Transport of Air Pollution
for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
A. SIP Summaries
1. Arizona
Prior Notices Related to Arizona's SIP Submission
2. New Mexico
a. Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding Step 1
b. Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding Step 2
c. New Mexico Letter
3. Tennessee
Prior Notices Related to Tennessee's SIP Submission
B. EPA Evaluation
1. Arizona
a. Evaluation of Information Provided by Arizona Regarding Steps
1 and 2
b. Results of the EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 Modeling and Findings
for Arizona
c. Evaluation of Information Provided Regarding Step 3
d. Conclusion
2. New Mexico
a. Evaluation of Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding
Step 1
b. Evaluation of Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding
Step 2
c. Results of the EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 Modeling and Findings
for New Mexico
d. Evaluation of Information Provided Regarding Step 3
e. NMED's July 2023 Letter
f. Conclusion
3. Tennessee
a. Evaluation of Information Provided by Tennessee Regarding
Step 1
b. Evaluation of Information Provided by Tennessee Regarding
Step 2
c. Results of the EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 Modeling and Findings
for Tennessee
d. Evaluation of Information Provided for Tenessee Regarding
Step 3
e. Conclusion
C. Proposed SIP Action
V. Other Clean Air Act Authorities for This Action
A. Correction of the EPA's Determination Regarding SIP
Submissions From Iowa and Kansas and Its Impact on the EPA's FIP
Authority for Iowa and Kansas
B. Application of Rule in Indian Country and Necessary or
Appropriate Finding
VI. Quantifying Upwind-State NOX Emissions Reduction
Potential To Reduce Interstate Ozone Transport for the 2015 Ozone
NAAQS
A. Summary of Multi-Factor Test
B. Summary of Control Stringency Levels
1. EGUs
2. Non-EGUs
C. Control Stringencies Represented by Cost Threshold ($ per
Ton) and Corresponding Emissions Reductions
1. EGUs
2. Non-EGUs
D. Assessing Cost, EGU and Non-EGU NOX Reductions,
and Air Quality
1. EGU and Non-EGU Cost and Emissions Reductions Assessment
2. Step 3 Air Quality Assessment Methodology
3. Results for Combined EGU and Non-EGU Air Quality Assessment
4. Conclusions
VII. Regulatory Requirements and Implementation
A. Regulatory Requirements for EGUs
1. Applicability and Tentative Identification of Newly Affected
Units
2. Preset State Emissions Budgets
3. Unit-Level Allowance Allocations
4. Timing Adjustments for Certain Trading Program Provisions
5. Creation of an Additional Group 3 Allowance Bank for the 2025
Control Period and Adjustment to Bank Recalibration for the 2025
Control Period
B. Regulatory Requirements for Non-EGUs
C. Submitting a SIP
1. SIP Option To Modify Allocations for 2026 Under EGU Trading
Program
2. SIP Option To Modify Allocations for 2027 and Beyond Under
EGU Trading Program
3. SIP Option To Replace the Federal EGU Trading Program With an
Integrated State EGU Trading Program
4. SIP Revisions That Do Not Use the Trading Program
5. SIP Revision Requirements for Non-EGU or Industrial Source
Control Requirements
D. Title V Permitting
VIII. Environmental Justice Considerations, Implications and
Outreach
A. Environmental Justice
1. EGU Proximity Assessment
2. Non-EGU Proximity Assessment
B. Outreach
IX. Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Proposed Rule
X. Summary of Proposed Changes to Existing Regulatory Text
A. Amendments To Apply the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's
Requirements to EGUs in Additional States
B. Amendments To Apply the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's
Requirements to Non-EGUs in Additional States
C. Technical Corrections and Clarifications to Previously
Finalized Regulatory Text
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
1. Information Collection Request for Electric Generating Units
2. Information Collection Request for Non-Electric Generating
Units
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
K. Determinations Under CAA Section 307(b)(1) and (d)
I. Executive Summary
This proposed rule would resolve the interstate transport
obligations of five states under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
referred to as the
[[Page 12668]]
``good neighbor provision'' or the ``interstate transport provision''
of the Act, for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. On October 1, 2015, the EPA
revised the primary and secondary 8-hour standards for ozone to 70
parts per billion (ppb).\1\ States were required to provide ozone
infrastructure SIP submissions to fulfill interstate transport
obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS by October 1, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 80 FR 65291 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to make a finding that interstate transport of
ozone precursor emissions from five upwind states (Arizona, Iowa,
Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee) is interfering with maintenance of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. The EPA is withdrawing its
previous proposed actions on SIP submissions from Arizona and
Tennessee,\2\ proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
good neighbor SIP submissions from Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee,
and to error-correct its prior good neighbor SIP approval actions for
Iowa and Kansas to partial disapprovals.\3\ To fulfill the EPA's
responsibility to ensure that states meet their interstate transport
obligations as expeditiously as practicable to meet attainment
deadlines for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the EPA also proposes FIP
requirements for these five states to prohibit the emissions that
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. For states
covered in this action, the EPA proposes to define new ozone season
nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions performance obligations for
Electric Generating Unit (EGU) sources and to fulfill those obligations
by implementing an allowance-based ozone season trading program
beginning in 2025. The EPA is also proposing to establish emissions
limitations beginning in 2027 for certain other industrial stationary
sources (referred to generally as ``non-Electric Generating Units''
(non-EGUs) in Arizona. Taken together, these strategies will fully
resolve the covered states' good neighbor obligations for the 2015
ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 87 FR 37776 (June 24, 2022). (The EPA's proposed
approval of Arizona's SIP); and 87 FR 9545 (February 22, 2022) (The
EPA's proposed disapproval of Tennessee's SIP).
\3\ See 87 FR 22463 (April 15, 2022) (Iowa); and 87 FR 19390
(April 4, 2022) (Kansas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to implement the necessary emissions reductions as
follows. The proposed FIP requirements establish ozone season
NOX emissions budgets for EGUs in Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New
Mexico, and Tennessee and require EGUs in these states to participate
in the revised version of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program established in the
final Federal Good Neighbor Plan Rule.\4\ For states currently covered
by the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program (i.e.,
Iowa, Kansas, Tennessee), the EPA proposes to amend existing FIPs to
transition EGU sources in these states from the Group 2 trading program
to the revised Group 3 trading program, beginning with the 2025 ozone
season. The EPA proposes to issue new FIPs for Arizona and New Mexico,
which are not currently covered by any CSAPR NOX ozone
season trading program. Under CAA section 301(d)(4), the EPA also
proposes to extend the FIP requirements to apply in Indian country
located within the geographical boundaries of the states included in
this proposal, including Indian reservation lands and other areas of
Indian country over which the EPA or a tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The timeframes for implementation of these emissions-reduction
strategies are, in the EPA's judgment, as expeditious as practicable
and aligned to the extent possible with the attainment schedule for
downwind areas in nonattainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As discussed
in section VI. of this document, the EPA proposes to find that the 2025
ozone season is as expeditious as practicable to implement emissions
reductions associated with near-term emissions control strategies at
EGUs, and the 2027 ozone season is as expeditious as practicable to
implement emissions reductions associated with new post-combustion
control installations at EGUs as well as from installation of new
pollution controls at non-EGUs.
As identified in section VI. of this document, the EPA proposes to
find that, because Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee are not
linked to receptors in the 2026 ozone season, the near-term EGU
emissions-control strategy is sufficient to eliminate these states'
interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in other states. Because
Arizona remains linked to receptors through the 2026 ozone season, the
EPA proposes to find that additional NOX emissions from EGUs
and NOX emissions from non-EGU sources in Arizona are
interfering with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states
and that additional cost-effective controls for NOX
emissions reductions are available from EGUs and in certain industries
that would result in meaningful air quality improvements at downwind
receptors. Thus, in addition to more stringent EGU emissions budgets
for Arizona beginning in 2027, the EPA proposes to require emissions
limitations beginning in 2027 for non-EGUs located within Arizona. The
Federal Good Neighbor Plan established NOX emissions
limitations during the ozone season for the following unit types for
sources in non-EGU industries: reciprocating internal combustion
engines (RICE) in Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas; kilns in
Cement and Cement Product Manufacturing; boilers and reheat furnaces in
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing; furnaces in Glass
and Glass Product Manufacturing; boilers in Basic Chemical
Manufacturing, Metal Ore Mining, Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing, and Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills and combustors and
incinerators in Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 88 FR 36654, at 36817.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
In this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA is
providing an opportunity for public comment on its proposed conclusion
that SIP submissions from Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee do not
contain the necessary provisions to prohibit emissions from sources
within their states from interfering with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS in downwind areas. The EPA also proposes to find it necessary to
issue an error correction under the authority of CAA section 110(k)(6)
of its previous approval actions for Kansas and Iowa and proposes to
partially disapprove these states' interstate transport submissions. In
addition, the EPA proposes to conclude that emissions from sources in
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states, and therefore the
EPA is proposing FIPs to address these states' transport obligations
through expanding the coverage of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan Rule
\6\ finalized on March 15, 2023. The EPA is proposing to implement the
ozone season NOX trading program requirements for EGU
sources in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan as the FIPs for Arizona,
Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee and the emissions limits for
non-EGU (industrial) sources in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan as the
FIP for Arizona. These control strategies, if finalized,
[[Page 12669]]
will prohibit the emissions from these five states identified as
interfering with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to extend the coverage of the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan to these five additional states based on the same data
and analyses contained in that rule. In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan,
the EPA identified and finalized FIPs for 23 states with emissions that
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. The EPA used the same set of
nationwide air quality modeling, air quality monitoring data, and
technical analysis of emissions control opportunities in defining good
neighbor obligations for all states covered in that action. Consistent
with the application of the EPA's 4-step interstate transport
framework, which has been used in prior good neighbor rules like the
CSAPR and upheld by the federal courts, the EPA applied emissions
control requirements on a uniform basis across those states based on
that record.
The EPA maintains that it is reasonable, appropriate, and
consistent with the EPA's prior decisions to extend the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan's contribution analysis and emissions control
requirements to include the five states covered in this action. The EPA
has not identified any factors unique to these five states that would
warrant applying a different approach. These five states were not
addressed in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan because the EPA was not
positioned to take final rulemaking action to disapprove SIPs, error
correct prior approvals to disapprovals, or promulgate FIPs for these
states at that time. To maintain consistency across all states such
that the allocation of responsibility for eliminating states'
significant contribution and interference with maintenance of the NAAQS
in downwind states is done on an equitable basis, the EPA proposes to
apply to five additional states the nationwide findings and
determinations contained in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan as to the
original 23 states which will, if finalized, eliminate these additional
states' significant contribution. Thus, in this action the EPA proposes
to apply to these five states its air quality modeling and contribution
information for the analytical years 2023 and 2026 at Steps 1 and 2,
its analysis of emissions control opportunities for EGUs and non-EGUs
and determinations of stringency, including overcontrol analysis, at
Step 3, and its implementation programs at Step 4. The technical
materials and record-based findings that underlie these determinations
are all contained in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan record. The scope
of this rulemaking is limited to the application of that record to
these five additional states.
Thus, in this document, the EPA is taking comment only on (a) the
EPA's proposed conclusions that SIP submissions from Arizona, New
Mexico, and Tennessee do not contain the necessary provisions to
prohibit emissions from sources within their respective states from
interfering with maintenance of the 2015 ozone standard, (b) the EPA's
proposed conclusion that the Agency must error correct its final rules
approving SIPs from Iowa and Kansas to partial disapprovals, (c) the
EPA's proposed conclusions that the five states identified above have
emissions that interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in
other states, and (d) the EPA's proposed decision to apply the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan emissions-control programs as the FIP requirements
to address these emissions in these five states.
Additionally, the EPA has updated its analysis of air quality
improvements at Step 3 and demonstration that there is no overcontrol
resulting from the inclusion of these five additional states in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA proposes that the 2025 and 2027
ozone seasons represent appropriate compliance start-dates for these
states, affording sufficient lead time for sources to plan for
compliance from the standpoint of when this rulemaking will likely be
finalized, which the EPA currently anticipates will be in the summer of
2024. These proposed findings are within the scope of this rulemaking
and open for public comment.
The EPA is not reopening any determinations made in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan as to the 23 states covered in that action. Nor is
the EPA taking comment on any aspect of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan,
except to the extent of its application to these five states. In
general, the record for the Federal Good Neighbor Plan Rule contains
information at each step of the 4-step interstate transport framework
that can be applied to these five states. Thus, the identification of
receptors to which these five states are linked and the level of
contribution from these states to those receptors is based on the same
analytical findings using the air quality modeling and monitoring data
contained in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. In addition, the analysis
underlying the EPA's determinations at Step 3 as to EGUs and non-EGUs
and the appropriate degree of emissions-control stringency needed to
eliminate significant contribution and interference with maintenance
likewise was conducted on a region-wide basis, and in the EPA's view is
reasonably applied to the emissions sources in these five states. The
emissions-control requirements were established on a uniform basis for
each particular industry covered in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, and
do not vary by State (except to the extent that states not linked in
2026 are not subject to the requirements that onset in 2026 and
California's EGUs are not subject to the EGU trading program). Based on
these findings, these programs should be extended to these five states.
This is reasonable and indeed necessary to ensure consistency and
equitable treatment across all states in addressing the nationwide
problem of interstate ozone pollution for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. See EME
Homer City v. EPA, 472 U.S. 572, 519, 524 (2014). This is also
consistent with the EPA's practice throughout the history of
implementing the good neighbor provision for other NAAQS. For instance,
using the final analysis in the original CSAPR rulemaking, the EPA soon
after conducted rulemaking to include five additional states in the
CSAPR trading programs. See 76 FR 80760 (December 27, 2011). Thus, for
the same reasons, the EPA proposes to find it reasonable and
appropriate to extend the uniform set of findings and determinations
made in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan to these five additional states
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is not aware of any information with
respect to these states that would justify a deviation from the same
set of findings and requirements that already have been made for the 23
states covered in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan with respect to these
same obligations.
Finally, this action also includes proposed technical corrections
to the existing regulatory text finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan.
B. Costs and Benefits
Table I.B-1 summarizes the key results of the cost-benefit analysis
that was prepared for this proposed rule. Table I.B-1 presents
estimates of the present values (PV) and equivalent annualized values
(EAV), calculated using discount rates of 3 and 7 percent as
recommended by the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-
4, of the health and climate benefits, compliance costs, and net
benefits of the proposed rule, in 2016 dollars, discounted to 2023. The
estimated monetized net benefits are the
[[Page 12670]]
estimated monetized benefits minus the estimated monetized costs of the
proposed rule. These results present an incomplete overview of the
effects of the rule because important categories of benefits were not
monetized (e.g., ecosystem effects, visibility impairment, and water
quality improvements) and are therefore not reflected in the cost-
benefit tables. The EPA anticipates that taking non-monetized effects
into account would show the proposed rule to be more net beneficial
than this table reflects.
Table I.B-1--Estimated Monetized Health and Climate Benefits, Compliance Costs, and Net Benefits of the Proposed
Rule, 2025 Through 2044
[Millions 2016$, discounted to 2023] \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value:
Health Benefits \b\............ $330 and $1,900...................... $210 and $1,200.
Climate Benefits \c\........... $9.3................................. $9.3.
Compliance Costs \d\........... $67.................................. $45.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits............... $270 and $1,800...................... $180 and $1,100.
Equivalent Annualized Value:
Health Benefits................ $22 and $130......................... $20 and $110.
Climate Benefits............... $0.6................................. $0.6.
Compliance Costs............... $4.5................................. $4.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Benefits............... $18 and $120......................... $17 and $110.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Rows may not appear to add correctly due to rounding. The EPA used 2016 dollars in both the proposal and
final Revised CSAPR Update Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), as well as the proposal and final Federal Good
Neighbor Plan RIA; to be consistent with those recent actions we continued to use 2016 dollars as the dollar
year for presenting costs and benefits.
\b\ The annualized present value of costs and benefits are calculated over a 20-year period from 2025 to 2044.
Monetized benefits include those related to public health associated with reductions in ozone and PM2.5
concentrations. The health benefits are associated with two alternative estimates of the number of premature
deaths and are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. Several categories of benefits remain
unmonetized and are thus not reflected in the table.
\c\ Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) (model
average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate).
For presentational purposes in this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-CO2 at a 3-
percent discount rate are used in the columns displaying results of other costs and benefits that are
discounted at either a 3-percent or 7-percent discount rate.
\d\ The costs presented in this table are consistent with the costs presented in section 3 of the Economic
Impact Assessment (EIA). To estimate these annualized costs for EGUs, the EPA uses a conventional and widely
accepted approach that applies a capital recovery factor multiplier to capital investments and adds that to
the annual incremental operating expenses. Costs were calculated using a 3.75 percent real discount rate
consistent with the rate used in the Integrated Planning Model's (IPM) objective function for cost-
minimization. For further information on the discount rate use, please see section 3 of the EIA.
As shown in Table I.B-1, the PV of the monetized health benefits,
associated with reductions in ozone and PM2.5 of this
proposed rule, discounted at a 3-percent discount rate, is estimated to
be about $330 and $1,900 million, with an EAV of about $22 and $130
million. At a 7-percent discount rate, the PV of the monetized health
benefits is estimated to be $210 and $1,200 million, with an EAV of
about $20 and $110 million. The PV of the monetized climate benefits,
associated with reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, of this
proposed rule, discounted at a 3-percent discount rate, is estimated to
be about $9.3 million, with an EAV of about $0.6 million. The PV of the
monetized compliance costs, discounted at a 3-percent rate, is
estimated to be about $67 million, with an EAV of about $4.5 million.
At a 7-percent discount rate, the PV of the compliance costs is
estimated to be about $45 million, with an EAV of about $4.2 million.
II. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
This supplemental proposed rule affects EGU and non-EGU sources,
and regulates the groups identified in Table II.A-1, along with their
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code.
Table II.A-1--Regulated Groups
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry group NAICS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil fuel-fired electric power generation............. 221112
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas.................. 4862
Metal Ore Mining........................................ 2122
Cement and Concrete Product Manufacturing............... 3273
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing....... 3311
Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing................... 3272
Basic Chemical Manufacturing............................ 3251
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing............... 3241
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills....................... 3221
Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators................. 562213
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
proposed rule. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is
now aware could potentially be
[[Page 12671]]
regulated by this proposed rule. Other types of entities not listed in
the table could also be regulated. To determine whether a particular
entity is regulated by this proposed rule, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 97.1004 (EGUs) or 40 CFR
52.40(c), 52.41(b), 52.42(b), 52.43(b), 52.44(b), 52.45(b), and
52.46(b) (non-EGUs). If you have questions regarding the applicability
of this proposed rule to a particular entity, consult the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What action is the Agency taking?
The EPA evaluated whether interstate ozone transport emissions from
upwind states are significantly contributing to nonattainment, or
interfering with maintenance, of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any downwind
State using the same 4-step interstate transport framework that was
developed in previous ozone transport rulemakings. In its previous
action, the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA found that sources in
23 states had obligations to eliminate their significant contribution
to nonattainment and interference with maintenance in downwind
areas.\7\ In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to apply that
same analysis to find that emissions reductions are required from EGU
sources in the additional states of Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico,
and Tennessee and from non-EGU sources in Arizona. The EPA proposes to
ensure that these NOX emissions reductions are achieved by
issuing FIP requirements for these five states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to find that SIP submissions
from Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee lack adequate provisions to
ensure sources and other emissions activity in their states are not
interfering with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states.
The EPA is also proposing to error correct its previous actions on SIP
submissions from Iowa and Kansas to partial disapprovals for the same
reason.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 87 FR 22463 (April 15, 2022) (Iowa); 87 FR 19390 (April 4,
2022) (Kansas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this same action, the EPA proposes FIP requirements for these
five states. The EPA is proposing to incorporate Arizona, Iowa, Kansas,
New Mexico, and Tennessee into the existing CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 Trading Program established in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, beginning in the 2025 ozone season. EGUs in states not currently
covered by any CSAPR trading program for seasonal NOX
emissions--Arizona and New Mexico--will be added to the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program under this rule.
EGUs in Iowa, Kansas, and Tennessee will transition from the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program to the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program. The EPA is
establishing a control stringency level reflecting optimization of
existing post-combustion controls and installation of state-of-the-art
combustion controls on certain covered EGU sources in the emissions
budgets beginning in the 2025 ozone season. In addition, for Arizona,
the EPA is establishing a control stringency level reflecting
installation of new Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) or Selective
Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) controls on certain covered EGU sources
in its emissions budgets beginning with the 2027 ozone season.
Consistent with the emissions limitations established for non-EGU
sources in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, this supplemental action
proposes to establish emissions limitations for new and existing non-
EGU sources in Arizona beginning with the 2027 ozone season. The
Federal Good Neighbor Plan established control requirements for the
following unit types in non-EGU industries: RICE in Pipeline
Transportation of Natural Gas; kilns in Cement and Cement Product
Manufacturing; reheat furnaces in Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy
Manufacturing; furnaces in Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing;
boilers in Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing, Metal Ore
Mining, Basic Chemical Manufacturing, Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing, and Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills; and combustors
and incinerators in Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators. See Table
II.A-1 in this document for a list of NAICS codes for the relevant
industries.
In accordance with the requirements of the good neighbor provision,
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), this proposed rule reduces the
transport of ozone and ozone precursors from emissions in upwind states
to downwind areas to protect human health and the environment from
negative health impacts associated with acute and chronic exposure to
ozone. Ozone exposure is also associated with negative effects on
ecosystems. Additional information on the air quality issues addressed
by this proposed rule is included in section IX. of this document.
C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
The statutory authority for this proposed action is provided by the
CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). Specifically, sections 110 and
301 of the CAA provide the primary statutory underpinnings for this
action. The most relevant portions of CAA section 110 are subsections
110(a)(1), 110(a)(2) (including 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)), 110(k)(2),
110(k)(3), 110(k)(6), and 110(c)(1).
CAA section 110(a)(1) provides that states must make SIP
submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
that these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS.\9\ The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon the EPA
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1).
\10\ See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 572 U.S. 489,
509-10 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has historically referred to SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the applicable requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' or ``iSIP''
submissions.'' CAA section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general
requirements for iSIP submissions, and CAA section 110(a)(2) provides
more details concerning the required content of these submissions.\11\
It includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' must
address, including the requirements of the good neighbor provision.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
\12\ The EPA's general approach to infrastructure SIP
submissions is explained in greater detail in individual documents
acting or proposing to act on State infrastructure SIP submissions
and in guidance. See, e.g., Memorandum from Stephen D. Page on
Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements
under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (September 13,
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 110(c)(1) requires the Administrator to promulgate a
FIP at any time within 2 years after the Administrator: (1) finds that
a State has failed to make a required SIP submission; (2) finds a SIP
submission to be incomplete pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(C); or
(3) disapproves a SIP submission. This obligation applies unless the
State corrects the deficiency through a SIP revision that
[[Page 12672]]
the Administrator approves before the FIP is promulgated.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the ``good neighbor''
provision, provides the primary basis for this proposed action.\14\ It
requires that each State's SIP include provisions sufficient to
``prohibit[ ], consistent with the provisions of this subchapter, any
source or other type of emissions activity within the State from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will--(I) contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by,
any other State with respect to any [NAAQS].'' \15\ The EPA often
refers to the emissions reduction requirements under this provision as
``good neighbor obligations'' and submissions addressing these
requirements as ``good neighbor SIPs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once the EPA promulgates a NAAQS, the EPA must designate areas as
being in ``attainment'' or ``nonattainment'' of the NAAQS, or
``unclassifiable.'' CAA section 107(d).\16\ For ozone, nonattainment is
further split into five classifications based on the severity of the
violation--Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme. Higher
classifications provide states with progressively more time to attain
while imposing progressively more stringent control requirements. See
CAA sections 181, 182.\17\ In general, states with nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate or higher must submit plans to the EPA to bring
these areas into attainment according to the statutory schedule in CAA
section 182.\18\ If an area fails to attain the NAAQS by the attainment
date associated with its classification, it is ``bumped up'' to the
next classification, per the requirements in CAA section 181(b).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 42 U.S.C. 7407(d).
\17\ 42 U.S.C. 7511, 7511a.
\18\ 42 U.S.C. 7511a.
\19\ 42 U.S.C. 7511(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 301(a)(1) of the CAA gives the Administrator the general
authority to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out
functions under the Act.\20\ Pursuant to this section, the EPA has
authority to clarify the applicability of CAA requirements and
undertake other rulemaking action as necessary to implement CAA
requirements. CAA section 301 affords the Agency any additional
authority that may be needed to make certain other changes to its
regulations under 40 CFR parts 52 and 97 to effectuate the purposes of
the Act. Such changes are discussed in section X. of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA gives the Administrator authority,
without any further submission from a state, to revise certain prior
actions, including actions to approve SIP submissions, upon determining
that those actions were in error.\21\ As discussed further in section
V.A. of this document, the EPA proposes to make error corrections under
CAA section 110(k)(6) with respect to its prior approvals of the 2015
ozone transport SIP submissions from the States of Iowa and Kansas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribes are not required to submit State implementation plans.
However, as explained in the EPA's regulations outlining Tribal CAA
authority, the EPA is authorized to promulgate FIPs for Indian country
as necessary or appropriate to protect air quality if a Tribe does not
submit, and obtain the EPA's approval of, an implementation plan. See
40 CFR 49.11(a); see also CAA section 301(d)(4).\22\ In this action,
the EPA proposes an ``appropriate or necessary'' finding under CAA
section 301(d) and proposes Tribal FIP(s) as necessary to implement the
relevant requirements. This is further discussed in section V.B. of
this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 42 U.S.C. 7601(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Severability
The EPA regards this proposal as a complete remedy for the covered
states, which will as expeditiously as practicable implement good
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, consistent with the
requirements of the Act. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 911-
12 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313- 20 (D.C. Cir.
2019); Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185, 1204 (D.C. Cir. 2020); New York
v. EPA, 964 F.3d 1214, 1226 (D.C. Cir. 2020); New York v. EPA, 781 Fed.
App'x 4, 7-8 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (all holding that the EPA must address
good neighbor obligations as expeditiously as practicable and by no
later than the next applicable attainment date). Yet the EPA proposes
that should a court find any discrete aspect of this action, if
finalized, to be invalid, the Agency believes that, like the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan, the remaining aspects of this proposed rule can and
should continue to be implemented to the extent possible, consistent
with law. See 88 FR 36693. In particular, this proposal would
disapprove SIP submissions and promulgate a FIP for each covered state
(and, pursuant to CAA section 301(d), for each area of tribal
jurisdiction within the geographic boundaries of those states). Should
any jurisdiction-specific aspect of the rule, once finalized be found
invalid, the EPA views this rule, if finalized as proposed, as
severable along those state and/or tribal jurisdictional lines, such
that the proposed rule could continue to be implemented as to any
remaining jurisdictions. This action proposes discrete emissions
control requirements for the power sector and for each of nine other
industries. Should any industry-specific aspect of the proposed rule be
found invalid once final, the EPA views this rule as proposed as
severable as between the different industries and different types of
emissions control requirements. This is not intended to be an
exhaustive list of the ways in which the proposed rule may be
severable. In the event any part of the rule, if finalized, is found
invalid, our intention is that the remaining portions should continue
to be implemented consistent with any judicial ruling.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ In a declaration dated October 28, 2023, and filed with the
U.S. Supreme Court in State of Ohio et al. v. EPA, No. 23A349, the
Agency, through Joseph Goffman, the Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator performing delegated duties of Assistant Administrator
for the Office of Air and Radiation, explained in greater detail why
it makes sense as both a technical and legal matter that the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan can continue to be implemented in each covered
state despite preliminary stays of the Plan in other states. This
same reasoning applies with full force with respect to the
additional states that are proposed for inclusion in these programs
in this action. The declaration is included in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's conclusion that this proposed rule, upon finalization, is
severable also reflects the important public health and environmental
benefits of this rulemaking in eliminating significant contribution and
to ensure to the greatest extent possible the ability of both upwind
states and downwind states and other relevant stakeholders to be able
to rely on this rule at final in their planning. Cf. Wisconsin, 938
F.3d at 336-37 (``As a general rule, we do not vacate regulations when
doing so would risk significant harm to the public health or the
environment.''); North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (noting the need to preserve public health benefits); EME Homer
City v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 132 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (noting the need to
avoid disruption to emissions trading market that had developed).
E. Public Participation
1. Written Comments
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-
0402, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be
[[Page 12673]]
edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit to the EPA's docket at
https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be CBI,
Proprietary Business Information (PBI), or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system).
Please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for
additional submission methods; the full EPA public comment policy;
information about CBI, PBI, or multimedia submissions; and general
guidance on making effective comments.
2. Participation in Virtual Public Hearing
The EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hearing upon
publication of this document in the Federal Register. To register to
speak at the virtual hearing, please use the online registration form
available at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-2015-ozone-naaqs or
contact Ms. Pamela Long at (919) 541-0641 and/or [email protected] to
register to speak at the virtual hearing. The last day to pre-register
to speak at the hearing will be 3 working days before the hearing. On
[last working day before the hearing], the EPA will post a general
agenda for the hearing that will list pre-registered speakers in
approximate order at: https://www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-2015-ozone-naaqs.
The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the
hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule.
Additionally, requests to speak will be taken the day of the hearing at
the hearing registration desk. The EPA will make every effort to
accommodate all speakers who arrive and register, although preferences
on speaking times may not be able to be fulfilled. Each commenter will
have 3 minutes to provide oral testimony. The EPA encourages commenters
to provide the EPA with a copy of their oral testimony electronically
by emailing it to Ms. Pamela Long. The EPA also recommends submitting
the text of your oral comments as written comments to the rulemaking
docket.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations
but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information submitted during the comment
period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and
supporting information presented at the public hearing.
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing are
posted online at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/csapr-2015-ozone-naaqs.
While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth above,
please monitor our website or contact Ms. Pamela Long at (919) 541-0641
and/or [email protected] to determine if there are any updates. The EPA
does not intend to publish a document in the Federal Register
announcing updates.
The EPA will not provide audiovisual equipment for presentations
unless the Agency receives special requests in advance. Commenters
should notify Ms. Pamela Long when they pre-register to speak that they
will need specific equipment. If you require the services of an
interpreter or special accommodations such as audio description, please
pre-register for the hearing with Ms. Pamela Long and describe your
needs by [DATE 1 WEEK BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE]. The EPA may not
be able to arrange accommodations without advance notice.
III. Background
A. Description of Statutory Background
On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone
NAAQS (2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary
and secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm) for the 8-hour
standard.\24\ Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit,
within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIP
submissions meeting the applicable requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2).\25\ One of these applicable requirements is found in CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as the ``good neighbor'' or
``interstate transport'' provision, which generally requires that SIPs
contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities
from having certain adverse air quality effects on other states due to
interstate transport of pollution. There are two so-called ``prongs''
within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A SIP for a new or revised NAAQS
must contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type
of emissions activity within the State from emitting air pollutants in
amounts that will significantly contribute to nonattainment of the
NAAQS in another State (Prong 1) or interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS in another State (Prong 2). The EPA and states must give
independent significance to Prong 1 and Prong 2 when evaluating
downwind air quality problems under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final
Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Although the level of the
standard is specified in the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are
also described in ppb. For example, 0.070 ppm is equivalent to 70
ppb.
\25\ SIP submissions that are intended to meet the applicable
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are often
referred to as infrastructure SIPs and the applicable elements under
CAA section 110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure
requirements.
\26\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909-11 (D.C. Cir.
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 31, 2023, the EPA finalized disapproval of 19 SIP
submissions and partially approved and partially disapproved two SIP
submissions addressing the good neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. The EPA's evaluation for those actions applied uniform,
nationwide analytical methods, policy judgments, and interpretation
with respect to the same CAA obligations, i.e., implementation of good
neighbor requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015
ozone NAAQS for states across the country. To maintain consistency
across all states in light of the final analytical conclusions reached
in that action and the separate Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA
indicated it would take subsequent action on remaining SIP submissions
addressing interstate transport obligations for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.\27\ The EPA also indicated it would address previous final
actions on SIP submissions for states where the EPA's final analysis
suggested the State may be significantly contributing to nonattainment
or interfering with maintenance. In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan,
finalized on March 15, 2023, the EPA indicated it would address these
and any outstanding FIP obligations in a future action for these
states, which included the five states included here and Wyoming.\28\
The EPA finalized its approval of the SIP submission from Wyoming on
December 13, 2023.\29\ This action proposes to
[[Page 12674]]
address the five additional remaining SIP submissions and FIP
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 88 FR 36656.
\28\ 88 FR 36654 at 36656.
\29\ See Air Plan Approval; Wyoming; Interstate Transport of Air
Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, 88 FR 54998 (August 14, 2023). The EPA signed the final
approval on December 13, 2023. 88 FR 87720 (December 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Description of the EPA's 4-Step Interstate Transport Regulatory
Process
For decades, when evaluating SIPs and formulating FIPs, EPA has
consistently utilized the 4-step interstate transport framework (or 4-
step framework), which was developed to give meaning to the critical
statutory terms in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and to provide a
reasonable organization to the analysis of the complex air quality
challenge of interstate ozone transport. The EPA has addressed the
interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
with respect to prior NAAQS using the 4-step framework in several
regulatory actions, including the CSAPR, which addressed interstate
transport with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and
2006 fine particulate matter standards,\30\ the CSAPR Update \31\ and
the Revised CSAPR Update, both of which addressed the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.\32\ For the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the EPA uses this framework in
evaluating SIP submissions (while considering any alternative
approaches states may propose) and applied this framework in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of
Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals,
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
\31\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS, 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
\32\ In 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the
CSAPR Update to the extent it failed to require upwind states to
eliminate their significant contribution by the next applicable
attainment date by which downwind states must come into compliance
with the NAAQS, as established under CAA section 181(a). Wisconsin
v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313 (D.C. Cir. 2019). The Revised CSAPR Update
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021), responded to
the remand of the CSAPR Update in Wisconsin and the vacatur of a
separate rule, the ``CSAPR Close-Out,'' 83 FR 65878 (December 21,
2018), in New York v. EPA, 781 F. App'x. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
\33\ See 88 FR at 9338; 88 FR at 36671.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaped through the years by input from State air agencies \34\ and
other stakeholders on the EPA's prior interstate transport rulemakings
and SIP submission actions,\35\ as well as a number of court decisions,
the EPA has developed and used the 4-step interstate transport
framework to evaluate State's obligations to eliminate interstate
transport emissions under the interstate transport provision for the
ozone NAAQS: (1) identify monitoring sites that are projected to have
problems attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS (i.e., nonattainment
and/or maintenance receptors); (2) identify states that impact those
air quality problems in other (i.e., downwind) states sufficiently such
that the states are considered to ``contribute'' (i.e., are considered
``linked'') to those receptors and whose emissions therefore warrant
further review and analysis; (3) identify the emissions reductions
necessary (if any), applying a multifactor analysis, to eliminate each
linked upwind State's significant contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance of the NAAQS at the locations identified
in Step 1; and (4) adopt permanent and enforceable measures needed to
achieve those emissions reductions. EPA does not require states to use
the 4-step framework in good neighbor SIP submissions, but it is a
useful organizational tool that has been upheld by the Supreme Court as
``permissible, workable, and equitable.'' EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., 572 U.S. 489, 524 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See 63 FR 57356, 57361 (October 27, 1998).
\35\ In addition to CSAPR rulemakings, other regional
rulemakings addressing ozone transport include the ``NOX
SIP Call,'' 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998), and the ``Clean Air
Interstate Rule'' (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The general steps of this framework allow for some methodological
variation, and this can be seen in the evolution of the EPA's analytic
process across its prior rulemakings. This also means states have some
flexibility in developing analytic methods within this framework (and
may also attempt to justify an alternative framework altogether). The
four steps of the framework provide a reasonable organization to the
analysis of the complex air quality challenge of interstate ozone
transport. As discussed further throughout this document, the EPA has
organized its evaluation of good neighbor obligations around this
analytical framework (including the specific methodologies within each
step as evolved over the course of the CSAPR rulemakings since 2011).
Where states presented alternative approaches either to the EPA's
methodological approaches within the framework, or organized their
analysis in some manner that differed from it entirely, the EPA has
evaluated those analyses on their merits to determine compliance with
the good neighbor obligation or, in some cases, identified why even if
those approaches were acceptable, the State still does not meet the
good neighbor requirement and therefore does not have an approvable SIP
submission as a whole.
C. The EPA's Ozone Transport Modeling
The EPA has performed nationwide air quality modeling to project
ozone design values that are used in combination with measured data to
identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors at Step 1. To quantify
the contribution of emissions from individual upwind states on 2023 and
2026 ozone design values for the identified downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors at Step 2, the EPA has performed nationwide,
state-level ozone source apportionment modeling for 2023 and 2026. The
source apportionment modeling provides contributions to ozone at
receptors from precursor emissions of anthropogenic NOX and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in individual upwind states. In this
action, the EPA is proposing to apply the air quality modeling and
contribution results that were derived using the 2016v3 modeling and
monitoring data that informed the EPA's Step 1 and Step 2
determinations in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan--inclusive of the
approach for identifying certain addition sites as violating-monitor
maintenance-only receptors based on certified monitoring data and
regulatory design values for 2021 and 2022. This section provides an
overview of the modeling developments that resulted in those analytical
conclusions, which are used here to make good neighbor determinations
for these five additional states.
The EPA released several documents containing projected ozone
design values, contributions, and information relevant to air agencies
for evaluation of interstate transport with respect to the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. First, on January 6, 2017, the EPA published a notice of data
availability (NODA) in which the Agency requested comment on
preliminary interstate ozone transport data including projected ozone
design values and interstate contributions for 2023 using a 2011 base
year platform.\36\ In the NODA, the EPA used the year 2023 as the
analytic year for this preliminary modeling because this year aligns
with the expected attainment year for Moderate ozone nonattainment
areas for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\37\ On October 27, 2017, the EPA
released a memorandum (October 2017 memorandum) containing updated
modeling data for 2023, which incorporated changes made in response
[[Page 12675]]
to comments on the NODA, and was intended to provide information to
assist states' efforts to develop SIP submissions to address interstate
transport obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for
the 2015 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS),
82 FR 1733 (January 6, 2017).
\37\ 82 FR at 1735.
\38\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 27, 2018, the EPA issued a memorandum (March 2018
memorandum) noting that the same 2023 modeling data released in the
October 2017 memorandum could also be useful for identifying potential
downwind air quality problems with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS at
Step 1 of the 4-step interstate transport framework.\39\ The March 2018
memorandum also included the then newly available contribution modeling
data for 2023 to assist states in evaluating their impact on potential
downwind air quality problems for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS under
Step 2 of the 4-step interstate transport framework.\40\ The EPA
subsequently issued two more memoranda in August and October 2018,
providing additional information to states developing interstate
transport SIP submissions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS concerning,
respectively, potential contribution thresholds that may be appropriate
to apply in Step 2 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, and
considerations for identifying downwind areas that may have problems
maintaining the standard at Step 1 of the 4-step interstate transport
framework.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), March 27, 2018 (``March 2018 memorandum''),
available in docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
\40\ The March 2018 memorandum, however, provided, ``While the
information in this memorandum and the associated air quality
analysis data could be used to inform the development of these SIPs,
the information is not a final determination regarding states'
obligations under the good neighbor provision. Any such
determination would be made through notice-and-comment rulemaking.''
\41\ See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean
Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018 (``August 2018 memorandum''),
and Considerations for Identifying Maintenance Receptors for Use in
Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, October 19, 2018, available in docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the release of the modeling data shared in the March 2018
memorandum, the EPA performed updated modeling using a 2016 base year
emissions modeling platform (i.e., 2016 Version 1 Emissions Platform
Modeling, or ``2016v1''). This emissions platform was developed under
the EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional Organization (MJO)/state collaborative
project.\42\ This collaborative project was a multi-year joint effort
by the EPA, MJOs, and states to develop a new, more recent emissions
platform for use by the EPA and states in regulatory modeling as an
improvement over the dated 2011-based platform that the EPA had used to
project ozone design values and contribution data provided in the 2017
and 2018 memoranda. The EPA used the 2016v1 emissions to project ozone
design values and contributions for 2023. On October 30, 2020, in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA
released and accepted public comment on 2023 modeling that used the
2016v1 emissions platform.\43\ Although the Revised CSAPR Update
addressed transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the projected design
values and contributions from the 2016v1 platform were also useful for
identifying downwind ozone problems and linkages with respect to the
2015 ozone NAAQS.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ The results of this modeling, as well as the underlying
modeling files, are included in docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
The 2016v1 emissions modeling technical support document is
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272-0187. Both dockets
are available at https://www.regulations.gov.
\43\ See 85 FR 68964, 68981.
\44\ See the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for
the Final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update, included in
the Headquarters docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the final Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA made further
updates to the 2016-based emissions platform to include updated onroad
mobile emissions from Version 3 of the EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission
Simulator (MOVES) model (MOVES3) \45\ and updated emissions projections
for EGUs that reflected the emissions reductions from the Revised CSAPR
Update, recent information on plant closures, and other inventory
improvements. The EPA published these emissions inventories on its
website in September of 2021 and invited initial feedback from states
and other interested stakeholders.\46\ The construct of the updated
emissions platform, (i.e., 2016 Version 2 Emissions Platform Modeling,
or ``2016v2''), is described in the ``Technical Support Document (TSD):
Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the 2016v2 North American
Emissions Modeling Platform,'' hereafter known as the 2016v2 Emissions
Modeling TSD, and is included in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663. The
EPA performed air quality modeling using the 2016v2 emissions to
provide projections of ozone design values and contributions in 2023
and 2026 that reflect the effects on air quality of the 2016v2
emissions platform. The EPA used the results of the 2016v2 modeling to
inform proposed and final actions on 2015 ozone NAAQS good neighbor
obligations for Iowa and Kansas.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Additional details and documentation related to the MOVES3
model can be found at https://www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motor-vehicle-emission-simulator-moves.
\46\ https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2016v2-platform.
\47\ The EPA was obligated by consent-decree deadline to
finalize its action for Iowa and Kansas by April 30, 2022, and was
unable to consider or incorporate the later comments received on the
2016v2 modeling that were used to inform the 2016v3 modeling
informing the final Disapproval action and final Federal Good
Neighbor Plan in early 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also used the 2016v2 emissions inventories and modeling to
support proposed actions for several states, including the EPA's
previous proposals on Arizona and Tennesse, as well as the proposed
Federal Good Neighbor Plan. In response to comments received for these
rulemakings, the EPA updated the 2016v2 inventories and model design to
construct another emissions platform (i.e., 2016 Version 3 Emissions
Platform Modeling, or ``2016v3''), which was used to update the air
quality modeling. The EPA used this updated modeling to inform a final
rulemaking taking final action on 21 interstate transport SIP
submissions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS and to inform the final Federal
Good Neighbor Plan.48 49 In its final actions on both SIP
disapprovals, and the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA provided an
explanation of the adjustments and other modifications made to
construct the 2016v3 platform. Details on the 2016v3 air quality
modeling and the methods for projecting design values and determining
contributions in 2023 and 2026 based on this platform are described in
the TSD titled ``Air Quality
[[Page 12676]]
Modeling Final Rule TSD--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan,''
hereafter known as the Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.\50\ Additional
details related to the 2016v3 emissions platform are located in the TSD
titled ``Preparation of Emissions Inventories for the 2016v3 North
American Emissions Modeling Platform,'' hereafter known as the 2016v3
Emissions Modeling TSD, included in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0668.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ ``Air Plan Disapprovals; Interstate Transport of Air
Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,'' 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023), and ``Federal ``Good
Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,'' 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
\49\ In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA identified and
finalized FIPs for 23 states. This included the 21 states included
in the SIP Disapproval action, as well as Pennsylvania and Virginia.
The EPA had an obligation to finalize a FIP for these two states
(and Utah) following the EPA's finding of a failure to submit a SIP
from these two states (84 FR 66612). The EPA has not since received
SIP submissions from Pennsylvania or Virginia.
\50\ Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0668.
\51\ 2016v3 Emissions Modeling TSD in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0668.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this proposed action, the EPA primarily relies on modeling based
on the 2016v3 emissions platform coupled with measured data in Steps 1
and 2 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, which will
generally be referenced within this action as the ``2016v3 modeling''
for 2023 and 2026. As discussed further in section III.D.2. of this
document, the EPA is also applying its findings regarding violating-
monitor maintenance-only receptors in 2023 using certified monitoring
data and regulatory design values for 2021 and 2022. The EPA used the
2016v3 modeling to calculate contributions to these receptors. By again
using this same set of monitoring data and updated modeling results,
the EPA is using the most current and technically appropriate
information for this proposed rulemaking and also ensuring that its
regulatory determinations for these remaining states are wholly
consistent with the findings informing the EPA's final determinations
for all of the states included in the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
In this proposed action, the EPA is accepting public comment on the
2016v3 modeling and the violating-monitor methodology, solely as they
relate to Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee interstate
transport obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is not
reopening the modeling in relation to any other State or regulatory
action. Any comments received on the modeling that are not relevant to
the evaluation of these states' interstate transport obligations will
be treated as beyond the scope of this action.
States may have chosen to rely on the results of prior versions of
EPA's modeling and/or alternative modeling performed by states or MJOs
to evaluate downwind air quality problems and contributions as part of
their SIP submissions. The EPA is not proposing to disapprove any
State's submission in this action based on the State's choice of
modeling, but, consistent with its disapproval action, based on the
EPA's evaluation of the entire record, which aims to factually
determine whether states are projected to significantly contribute to
or interfere with maintenance in the 2023 analytical year. See 88 FR at
9343. In section IV.B. of this document, the EPA evaluates how Arizona,
Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee used air quality modeling
information in their SIP submissions.
A summary of the methodology and results of the 2016v3 modeling for
2023 and 2026, along with the application of the EPA's Step 1 and Step
2 methodology for identifying receptors and upwind states that
contribute to those receptors can be found in the Final Good Neighbor
Plan AQM TSD. That document also contains explanations as to how
current measured ozone levels based on data for 2021 and 2022 at other
monitoring sites (i.e., monitoring sites that are not projected to be
receptors in 2023 based on air quality modeling) confirm the likely
continuation of elevated ozone levels in 2023 at these locations. This
analysis shows that each of the five states in this action are linked
at or above (i.e., contributing equal to or more than) 1 percent of the
NAAQS to one or more of these monitors. Kansas and Tennessee are linked
only to violating-monitor receptors, and not to modeling-based
receptors. In recognition that the EPA had not proposed these sites as
receptors, linkages to such receptors were used only in a
``confirmatory'' way to inform the final Disapproval action and Good
Neighbor Plan (i.e., to reinforce linkage findings as to states that
were otherwise linked to modeling-based receptors). In this proposed
action, the EPA finds the existence of such linkages is sufficient to
establish that a State contributes to such receptors and is thus an
adequate basis on which to propose disapproval of the SIP submissions
from Kansas and Tennesse.
D. The EPA's Approach To Evaluating Interstate Transport for the 2015
Ozone NAAQS
The EPA has applied a consistent set of policy judgments across all
states for purposes of evaluating interstate transport obligations and
the approvability of interstate transport SIP submissions for the 2015
ozone NAAQS under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and proposes to
continue to do so in this action. These policy judgments conform with
relevant case law and past Agency practice as reflected in the CSAPR
and related rulemakings. Employing a nationally consistent approach is
particularly important in the context of interstate ozone transport,
which is a regional-scale pollution problem characterized by the
collective contribution from many upwind states to geographically
dispersed monitors over distances of hundreds of miles. Effective
policy solutions to the problem of interstate ozone transport going
back to the NOX SIP Call have necessitated the application
of a uniform framework of policy judgments to ensure an ``efficient and
equitable'' approach. See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 572
U.S. 489, 519 (2014).
In the March, August, and October 2018 memoranda, the EPA
recognized that states may be able to establish alternative approaches
to addressing their interstate transport obligations for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS that vary from a nationally uniform framework. The EPA emphasized
in these memoranda, however, that such alternative approaches must be
technically justified and appropriate in light of the facts and
circumstances of each particular State's SIP submission. In general,
the EPA continues to believe that deviation from a nationally
consistent approach to ozone transport must have a well-documented
technical basis that is consistent with CAA obligations and relevant
case law. Where states submitted SIP submissions that rely on any such
potential concepts as the EPA or others may have identified or
suggested in the past, the EPA will evaluate whether the State
adequately justified the technical and legal basis for doing so.
The EPA notes that certain potential concepts included in an
attachment to the March 2018 memorandum require unique consideration,
and these ideas do not constitute Agency guidance with respect to
interstate transport obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Attachment A
to the March 2018 memorandum identified a ``Preliminary List of
Potential Flexibilities'' that could potentially inform SIP
development. However, the EPA made clear in both the March 2018
memorandum \52\ and in Attachment A that the list of ideas was not
endorsed by the Agency but rather ``comments provided in various
forums'' on which the EPA sought ``feedback from interested
stakeholders.'' \53\ Further, Attachment A stated, ``EPA is not at this
time making any determination that the ideas discussed below are
consistent with the requirements of the CAA, nor are we specifically
recommending that states
[[Page 12677]]
use these approaches.'' \54\ Attachment A to the March 2018 memorandum,
therefore, does not constitute Agency guidance, but was intended to
generate further discussion around potential approaches to addressing
ozone transport among interested stakeholders. To the extent states
sought to develop or rely on one or more of these ideas in support of
their SIP submissions, the EPA will thoroughly review the technical and
legal justifications for doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ March 2018 memorandum, Attachment A.
\53\ Id. at A-1.
\54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of this section describes the EPA's analytic
framework and interpretation of the critical terms of the good neighbor
provision with respect to analytic year, definition of nonattainment
and maintenance receptors, selection of contribution threshold, and
multifactor control strategy assessment.
1. Selection of Analytic Years
In this section, the EPA describes its process for selecting
analytic years for air quality modeling and analyses performed to
identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors and identify upwind
State linkages. The EPA is retaining the 2023 and 2026 analytical years
used to inform the obligations of the 23 states included in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan, to ensure consistency and equitable treatment of
all states. In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA evaluated air
quality to identify receptors at Step 1 and evaluate interstate
contributions at Step 2 for two analytic years: 2023 and 2026.\55\
These years are the last full ozone seasons before the Moderate and
Serious area attainment dates for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (ozone seasons
for purposes of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan run each year from May
1-September 30, see 40 CFR 52.38(b)(1) and 40 CFR 52.40(c)(1)). To
demonstrate attainment by these deadlines, downwind states would be
required to rely on design values calculated using ozone data from 2021
through 2023 and 2024 through 2026, respectively. Areas that do not
attain by the deadline may be ``bumped up'' to a higher nonattainment
classification level per CAA sections 181 and 182, thereby incurring
additional ongoing obligations. Thus, in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, consistent with each of its prior good neighbor rulemakings, the
EPA focused its analysis on the last full ozone seasons before the
attainment dates (i.e., 2023 and 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ While the 2023 analytic year provides a sufficient basis to
act on the SIP submissions in this action, consistent with the EPA's
Disapproval action, see 88 FR 9340-41, the EPA uses the 2026
analytic year to ensure a complete Step 3 analysis in the context of
developing the FIP, see 88 FR 36694.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency recognizes that in applying its 2023 and 2026 analytics
to inform this action, it may be perceived as acting inconsistently
with a longstanding policy of always considering a future analytic year
from the standpoint of the timing of its rulemaking action. However,
the EPA determined that several important, overriding considerations
warrant adopting this approach in this supplemental rulemaking. As
explained in section I.A. of this document, it is imperative to
maintain a consistent set of analytical and policy determinations
across all states in the context of addressing the interstate ozone
problem; the EPA is doing so by using a consistent set of data and
analytical conclusions between the states included in this action and
those for which the EPA has already rendered final determinations in
the final SIP Disapproval action and the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
Were the EPA to conduct a new set of air quality analyses tied to years
beyond 2023 or 2026, the EPA would separately evaluate these states
using different data than that which informed and defined the
obligations of all other states, solely as a result of the timing of
the EPA's action on these states. Where the need for parity among
states or other jurisdictions in like circumstances warrants it, courts
have recognized that it may be appropriate for agencies like the EPA to
rely on a unified dataset to ensure consistency in treatment. See Bd.
County Commissioners of Weld County v. EPA, 72 F.4th 284, 290 (D.C.
Cir. 2023) (upholding as reasonable the EPA's determination that
``greater parity among counties and faster turnaround [ ] make the
original data a better choice than partial updating''). The importance
of use of a single, already-developed dataset focused on the years 2023
and 2026 to define good neighbor obligations for all states to ensure
consistency among states and for ``faster turnaround'' to complete this
supplemental rulemaking is, in the EPA's judgment, sufficiently
compelling to justify this approach here.
The EPA's use of a common and unified dataset here is consistent
with all of its past good neighbor rulemakings, including those in
which the EPA conducted updated air quality analysis to address
remaining good neighbor obligations. In both the CSAPR Update and the
Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA took action to address good neighbor FIP
actions that had been remanded to the EPA. In each case, the EPA
addressed the remanded obligations for all of the covered states
through analysis of a new analytic year. This ensured consistency among
all of the states where there were good neighbor obligations that
needed to be addressed. See, e.g., 86 FR 23067-68 (discussing error
correction for Kentucky ``consistent with EPA's methodology to address
the other 20 states'' included in that action). Further, the EPA
already had updated modeling at hand that could inform its new action.
See, e.g., id. at 23074, 23079-80. Likewise, where all of a group of
states' obligations were being addressed on remand from an action that
had not been vacated (as was the case in both the CSAPR Update and the
Revised CSAPR Update), it was important to reflect the emissions
reductions and air quality improvements that were already being
achieved from the non-vacated action in the baseline. See, e.g., id. at
23075. In this case, the EPA is not re-evaluating a group of states but
addressing additional states in a manner that ensures consistent
treatment with the first set of states. This circumstance is analogous
to the supplemental rulemaking the EPA undertook soon following the
original CSAPR rulemaking to add several states to those programs based
on the same data and analysis that informed the CSAPR. See 76 FR 80760
(December 27, 2011). In the EPA's judgment, the relevant considerations
therefore weigh in favor of using the currently available air quality
data that has already been used to define other states' obligations.
In addition, like the CSAPR supplemental rulemaking, the timing of
this action is the result of procedural happenstance, rather than a
substantive difference in the circumstances of any of these five
states. This timing was driven by the nature of the EPA's prior
proposed or final actions, or lack of such actions, that had been taken
at the time the EPA completed its final, updated air quality analysis
informing its final determinations on other states' obligations in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan (explained further in section III.C. of this
document). This final analysis of obligations based on 2023 and 2026
analytics necessitated the EPA's reevaluation of its proposals on
Arizona and Tennessee's SIP submissions, as well as the EPA's past
final actions on Iowa and Kansas' SIPs.\56\ In these circumstances,
given the potential change in the status of these states, the EPA also
found it would be appropriate to provide an opportunity
[[Page 12678]]
for public comment on the EPA's changed basis for action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ The EPA has not taken any previous proposed or final action
on New Mexico's SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, shifting the analysis of good neighbor obligations forward
to a new analytic year for these five states would not be relevant to a
proper definition of these good neighbor obligations, and switching the
analytic year(s) for just these five states could create an inequitable
result both amongst other upwind states and between these five states
and the downwind states to which they are linked. Creating a different
set of data for a later year for these states, when the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan has already defined requirements and is in effect for
certain other states, would introduce an interdependency, or ``who goes
first,'' problem that the EPA's framework generally is designed to
avoid. See Ky. Energy & Env't Cabinet v. EPA, No. 23-3605 (6th Cir.
Nov. 9, 2023), Slip Op. at 8. The EPA is not reopening the
determinations made for the 23 upwind states covered in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan, and 2023 and 2026 were appropriately selected as
the analytical years to inform the EPA's evaluation of these states.
See 88 FR at 36694-96. These years are associated with the statutory
attainment schedule faced by the downwind states with designated
nonattainment areas where the identified receptors are located. It is
at the least reasonable, therefore, to align these five states'
evaluation with the remainder of the states in the country, which will
maintain parity among all jurisdictions, which is preferable to only
``partially updating'' the analysis in the case of a handful of states.
Weld County, 72 F.4th at 290. This is a particularly important
consideration in implementing the good neighbor provision for ozone.
The EPA must ensure each state is held to the elimination of its own
significant contribution. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 920-
21 (D.C. Cir. 2008). And interstate ozone pollution presents a
``collective contribution'' problem in which the EPA must allocate a
fair share of responsibility among sources across multiple states. See
Maryland v. EPA, 1185 F.3d at 120304 (D.C. Cir. 2020); id. at 1204
(``So long as upwind sources significantly contribute to [a state's]
nonattainment at its 2021 [Marginal] attainment deadline, they violate
the Good Neighbor Provision.'').
As the Maryland court recognized, the consequences on downwind
nonattainment areas from failure to obtain relief from upwind
significant contribution are not just continuing poor air quality, but
also regulatory requirements that apply for years into the future,
including ``a requirement to provide for annual emissions reductions in
SIPs.'' Id. (citing CAA section 182(b)). The relief that can be
afforded through addressing the upwind states' significant
contribution, as proposed in this action, will therefore potentially
lessen regulatory burdens on downwind states that Congress commanded
they are not to bear alone. See 88 FR 36840 (discussing the history of
downwind states' and the EPA's reliance on emissions reductions
achieved through prior good neighbor rules in, for example,
redesignation actions and maintenance plans); cf. Maryland, 958 F.3d at
1200 (a state that cannot obtain relief from an upwind state's
significant contribution to a continuing nonattainment designation ``is
stuck in regulatory limbo''). Thus, using a common dataset makes good
sense in this context; it is consistent with the requirements and the
purpose of the good neighbor provision, and it ensures these
obligations are implemented both expeditiously and in a consistent and
equitable manner. Weld County, 72 F.4th at 290.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ While use of a common dataset makes sense for the reasons
stated, the EPA notes that it is not aware of other data sets,
including either monitoring data or modeling projections, that would
suggest alternative regulatory conclusions from those proposed here.
As evidenced by the most recent certified monitoring data and design
values from 2021 and 2022 used in the violating-monitor receptor-
identification methodology, relatively elevated ozone levels
exceeding the NAAQS continue to be observed throughout much of the
continental U.S., including in the designated nonattainment areas
where many of the ozone-transport receptors identified in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan are located.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of a common set of air quality data was upheld in Weld
County. The court, however, went on to find that another portion of the
EPA's action under review constituted impermissible retroactive
rulemaking, because it ``effectively backdated'' a nonattainment
designation, leaving a state that would have had a three-year period to
reach attainment in the position of ``missing a compliance deadline
that passed before the underlying legal obligation was imposed.'' 72
F.4th at 293. This proposed action does not operate retroactively. The
EPA's use of the 2023 analytic year does not in and of itself impose
any obligations on any sources or states. Rather it provides a common
dataset to assess whether any state is contributing to downwind
problems attaining the NAAQS. The EPA proposes to set compliance
obligations based on the amount of time needed for sources to come into
compliance and does not propose to impose liability on such sources for
not meeting the proposed obligations at some point in the past. See
section VII.A.4. and B. of this document. Nor would the proposed rule
apply retroactively to the five states with SIP submissions proposed to
be disapproved. The EPA is not proposing to backdate the date of
finalization of these proposed disapprovals to sometime in the past.
Rather, if the proposed disapprovals are finalized, the only legal
consequence--the establishment of a duty on the EPA to promulgate a
FIP--would run from the date a final action is taken. Unlike the three-
year ``runway'' allowed to reach attainment that the court found had
been impermissibly denied to the state in Weld County, 72 F.4th at 293,
the statute affords no such period following a SIP disapproval. CAA
section 110(c)(1). The EPA need not wait a single day to promulgate a
FIP upon issuing a disapproval of a SIP submission. EME Homer City, 489
U.S. at 509. Nor is the EPA obligated to give states a second chance to
submit a SIP before issuing a FIP. Id. Nonetheless, the states covered
in this supplemental proposed rulemaking have been on notice since the
issuance of the 2016v3 modeling and violating-monitor methodology in
connection with the SIP Disapproval and Federal Good Neighbor Plan
actions in winter of 2023 that they may be subject to a good neighbor
FIP due to identified linkages with downwind receptors. 88 FR 36656.
None of these five states has moved since that time to submit a revised
SIP submission to address the relevant requirements.
For consistency, the Agency similarly conducted its overcontrol
analysis for this action using the 2023 and 2026 data (see section
VI.D. of this document). The EPA recognizes that it is appropriate to
provide sufficient lead time to allow sources in these five states to
comply with the proposed requirements. Based on the compliance-timing
analysis conducted in the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan and applied
here (as discussed in section VII. of this document), the dates
proposed for the onset of these requirements for these five states fall
after the 2023 and 2026 analytic years. This too is a matter of
happenstance and does not justify a deviation from the definition of
these states' good neighbor obligations. Similarly, assuming favorable
outcomes in the ongoing litigation resulting in stays of the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan for several states pending judicial review, the EPA
anticipates adjusting the timing of compliance obligations if these
states are eventually made subject to the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
These circumstances are analogous to an issue the EPA addressed in the
final
[[Page 12679]]
Federal Good Neighbor Plan regarding the ability of individual sources
to apply for and obtain compliance extensions. The EPA explained that
where sources obtained such extensions, the EPA did not intend to
conduct further analysis of whether those reductions were still
required based on updated air quality analysis. As the EPA explained,
the Agency did not think individual sources should gain the benefit of
delaying emissions reductions simply in the hopes that they could show
those reductions would be overcontrol. This would introduce an inter-
dependency into the analysis, whereas each source must be held to the
elimination of its portion of significant contribution. Necessity, the
EPA explained, may demand some additional amount of time for
compliance, but equity demands that individual sources not gain an
untoward advantage from delay and reliance on other sources' timelier
compliance. See 88 FR at 36750 n.253. Thus, here, the EPA continues to
conduct its overcontrol analysis using the common datasets for 2023 and
2026, to ensure consistent and equitable determinations for what
constitutes ``significant contribution'' even if the implementation of
those emissions reductions may be delayed in certain states or for
certain sources.
Thus, the EPA proposes to continue to use its 2023 and 2026
analytics, to ensure parity by holding all states to a consistent set
of data in defining good neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS,
to avoid improperly shifting the burden of emissions reductions to
other upwind and downwind states, and to provide for an efficient and
administratively workable resolution of these remaining obligations for
five additional states.
2. Step 1 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
In Step 1, the EPA identifies monitoring sites that are projected
to have problems attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS in the 2023
analytic year. This approach reflects the EPA's interpretation of the
terms ``nonattainment'' and ``maintenance'' as used in the good
neighbor provision in the context of the ozone NAAQS. See 88 FR at
9341-42. Where the EPA's analysis shows that a site does not meet the
definition of a nonattainment or maintenance receptor, the EPA excludes
that site from further analysis under the EPA's 4-step interstate
transport framework. At Step 2 of the 4-step interstate transport
framework, the EPA considers those sites identified as a nonattainment
or maintenance receptor in 2023 and identifies which upwind states
contribute to those receptors above the contribution threshold.
The EPA's approach to identifying ozone nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in this action is the same as that used in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan.\58\ This approach gives independent
consideration to both the ``contribute significantly to nonattainment''
and the ``interfere with maintenance'' prongs of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the D.C. Circuit's direction in
North Carolina.\59\ To summarize this methodology:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0668 for additional details on the EPA's evaluation
nonattainment and maintenance receptor identification.
\59\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d at 910-11 (holding that
the EPA must give ``independent significance'' to each prong of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA identifies nonattainment receptors as those monitoring
sites that are projected to have average design values that exceed the
NAAQS and that are also measuring nonattainment based on the most
recent monitored design values. This approach is consistent with prior
transport rulemakings, such as the CSAPR Update, where the EPA defined
nonattainment receptors as those monitoring sites that both measure
nonattainment based on recent monitoring data (here, using certified
2021 data to be consistent with the analysis in the Good Neighbor Plan)
and that the EPA modeling projected to be in nonattainment in the
analytic year (i.e., 2023).60 61
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ The 2021 design values were the most current official
design values available for use in the 2016v3 modeling. The 2021
ozone design values, by monitoring site, can be found in the file
``Final GNP O3 DVs Contributions'', in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0668.
\61\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). This same concept,
relying on both current monitoring data and modeling to define
nonattainment receptor, was also applied in CAIR. See 70 FR at
25241, 25249 (January 14, 2005); see also North Carolina, 531 F.3d
at 913-14 (affirming as reasonable the EPA's approach to defining
nonattainment in CAIR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the EPA identified a receptor to be a ``maintenance''
receptor for purposes of defining interference with maintenance,
consistent with the method used in the CSAPR and upheld by the D.C.
Circuit in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 136
(D.C. Cir. 2015) (EME Homer City II).\62\ Specifically, the EPA
identified maintenance receptors as those receptors that would have
difficulty maintaining the relevant NAAQS in a scenario that takes into
account historical variability in air quality at that receptor. The
variability in air quality was determined by evaluating the ``maximum''
future design value at each receptor based on a projection of the
maximum measured design value over the relevant period. The EPA
interprets the projected maximum future design value to be a potential
future air quality outcome consistent with the meteorology that yielded
maximum measured concentrations in the ambient data set analyzed for
that receptor (i.e., ozone conducive meteorology). The EPA also
recognizes that previously experienced meteorological conditions (e.g.,
dominant wind direction, temperatures, and air mass patterns) promoting
ozone formation that led to maximum concentrations in the measured data
may reoccur in the future. The maximum design value gives a reasonable
projection of future air quality at the receptor under a scenario in
which such conditions do, in fact, reoccur. The projected maximum
design value is used to identify upwind emissions that, under those
circumstances, could interfere with the downwind area's ability to
maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). CSAPR Update and Revised
CSAPR Update also used this approach. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26,
2016) and 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonattainment receptors are also, by definition, maintenance
receptors, and so the EPA often uses the term ``maintenance-only'' to
refer to those receptors that are not nonattainment receptors.
Consistent with the concepts for maintenance receptors, as described
earlier, the EPA identifies ``maintenance-only'' receptors as those
monitoring sites that have projected average design values above the
level of the applicable NAAQS, but that are not currently measuring
nonattainment based on the most recent official design values.\63\ In
addition, those monitoring sites with projected average design values
below the NAAQS, but with projected maximum design values above the
NAAQS are also identified as ``maintenance-only'' receptors, even if
they are currently measuring nonattainment based on the most recent
official design values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ The Agency often uses the terms maintenance receptor and
maintenance-only receptor interchangeably when discussing
maintenance receptors that are not also nonattainment receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency has looked closely at measured ozone levels at ambient
monitoring sites in 2021 and 2022 for the purposes of informing the
identification of potential additional receptors in 2023. As explained
in more detail in the February 13, 2022, final
[[Page 12680]]
action disapproving 19 states' good neighbor SIP submissions, and
partially approving and partially disapproving 2 states' good neighbor
SIP submissions (``Disapproval action''), see 88 FR at 9349-50, the EPA
finds there is a basis to consider certain sites with elevated ozone
levels that are not otherwise identified as receptors to be an
additional type of maintenance-only receptor given the likelihood that
ozone levels above the NAAQS could persist at those locations through
at least 2023. These are referred to as violating-monitor maintenance-
only receptors (violating-monitor receptors). In this action, the EPA
proposes to use certified ambient monitoring data as an additional
method to identify maintenance-only receptors. More specifically,
violating-monitor receptors are monitoring sites with measured 2021 and
2022 design values and 2021 and 2022 4th high maximum daily average 8-
hour ozone concentrations that exceed the NAAQS, despite having model-
projected average and maximum design values for 2023 below the
NAAQS.\64\ The EPA finds these sites are at continuing risk of failing
to maintain the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which justifies categorizing these
sites as maintenance-only receptors. By applying the criteria that
certified 2021 and 2022 design values and 2021 and 2022 4th high
maximum daily average 8-hour ozone concentrations must all exceed the
NAAQS the EPA gives due consideration to both measured air quality data
and its modeling projections. This reasonably identifies monitoring
sites as receptors in 2023 using this methodology. If sites do not meet
these criteria, then the EPA could reasonably anticipate these sites to
not have a problem maintaining the NAAQS in 2023 and should therefore
not be considered receptors.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ A design value is calculated using the annual fourth-
highest maximum daily 8-hour ozone concentration averaged over 3
years.
\65\ We also note that 2023 monitoring data is not yet
certified, and further, because the Federal Good Neighbor Plan was
in effect in several states during the 2023 ozone season (and
sources may have otherwise voluntarily taken emissions-reduction
measures consistent with the Federal Good Neighbor Plan either
earlier than the effective date or in states where the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan was stayed), the 2023 monitoring data is less reliable
for use in establishing an air quality baseline, i.e., one in the
absence of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is not reopening its Step 1 methodologies or determinations
in this action as to the 23 states included in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan. The EPA proposes to apply this same methodology to
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee. Comments that are
unrelated to or go beyond the application of these methodologies to
these five states will be treated as beyond the scope of this action.
3. Step 2 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
In Step 2 the contribution of each upwind State to each receptor in
the 2023 analytic year is quantified. This approach reflects how the
Agency gives meaning to the term ``contribute'' in the good neighbor
provision in relation to the ``collective contribution'' problem posed
by interstate ozone pollution. See 88 FR at 9342. The contribution
metric used in Step 2 is defined as the average impact from each State
to each receptor on the days with the highest ozone concentrations at
the receptor based on the 2023 modeling. If a State's contribution
value does not equal or exceed the threshold of 1 percent of the NAAQS
(i.e., 0.70 ppb for the 2015 ozone NAAQS), the upwind State is not
``linked'' to a downwind air quality problem, and the EPA, therefore,
concludes that the State does not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in the
downwind states. However, if a State's average contribution equals or
exceeds the 1 percent threshold, the EPA further evaluates the State's
emissions in Step 3, considering both air quality and cost as part of a
multi-factor analysis, to determine what, if any, emissions might be
deemed ``significant'' and, thus, must be eliminated pursuant to the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
In this proposed action, the EPA relies in the first instance on
the 1 percent threshold for the purpose of evaluating a State's
contribution to nonattainment or maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
(i.e., 0.70 ppb) at downwind receptors. This is consistent with the
Step 2 approach that the EPA applied in the Disapproval action and in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA has acknowledged that states
may have been able to justify use of a different threshold at Step 2.
For reasons explained in section IV. of this document, no State
included in this action successfully made this demonstration. In
addition, the EPA explained in both the Disapproval action and in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan that the need for consistent treatment of
all states counsels against recognizing alternative thresholds on a
state-by-state basis. Based on its experience since the release of the
August 2018 memorandum, the EPA has also determined, as explained in
the Disapproval action and Federal Good Neighbor Plan, that it is not a
good use of Agency resources nor is it wise policy for the EPA to
attempt to justify the use of an alternative threshold on behalf of any
State that failed to conduct an adequate analysis itself. Likewise,
maintaining continuity across ozone NAAQS through consistent
application of a 1 percent of NAAQS threshold at Step 2 is appropriate,
so that, as the NAAQS is revised and made more protective, the
contribution threshold is correspondingly adjusted as well. See 88 FR
at 36712-17; 88 FR at 9371-75. See also 86 FR at 23085 (use of 1
percent threshold in the Revised CSAPR Update); 81 FR at 74518 (basis
for use of 1 percent threshold for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the CSAPR
Update); 76 FR at 48237-38 (original determination to use 1 percent
threshold for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in CSAPR).
Therefore, application of a consistent contribution threshold is
important to identify those upwind states that should have
responsibility for addressing their contribution to the downwind
nonattainment and maintenance problems to which they collectively
contribute. Continuing to use 1 percent of the NAAQS as the screening
metric to evaluate collective contribution from many upwind states also
allows the EPA (and states) to apply a consistent framework to evaluate
interstate emissions transport under the interstate transport provision
from one NAAQS to the next and helps ensure that good neighbor
obligations align with the stringency of the NAAQS.
The issue of the appropriate contribution threshold to apply was
thoroughly addressed in the Disapproval action and the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan rulemakings, and the EPA responded to numerous comments
on this topic. The EPA is not reopening this issue in this action,
except as to the question of whether there is any reason to regard the
Step 2 contribution threshold differently for any of these five
additional states. The Agency, however, sees no basis to do so.
4. Step 3 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
At Step 3 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, the EPA
further evaluates a State's emissions, in light of multiple factors,
including air quality and cost considerations, to determine what, if
any, emissions significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance and, thus, must be eliminated under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This approach reflects the EPA's interpretation of
the phrases ``contribute significantly'' or ``interfere
[[Page 12681]]
with maintenance'' as used in the good neighbor provision in the
context of the ozone NAAQS. See 88 FR at 9342-43.
Under the EPA's longstanding approach to eliminating significant
contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance, at
Step 3, a multi-factor assessment of potential emissions controls would
be conducted for states linked at Step 1 and 2. The EPA's analysis at
Step 3 in prior Federal actions addressing interstate transport
requirements has primarily focused on an evaluation of cost-
effectiveness of potential emissions controls (on a marginal cost-per-
ton basis), the total emissions reductions that may be achieved by
requiring such controls (if applied across all linked upwind states),
and an evaluation of the air quality impacts such emissions reductions
would have on the downwind receptors to which a State is linked; other
factors may potentially be relevant if adequately supported.
The EPA has consistently applied this general approach to Step 3
when identifying emissions contributions that the Agency has determined
to be ``significant'' (or interfere with maintenance) in each of its
prior Federal and regional ozone transport rulemakings, and this
interpretation of the statute has been upheld by the Supreme Court. See
EME Homer City, 572 U.S. 489, 519 (2014). While the EPA has not
directed states that they must conduct a Step 3 analysis in precisely
the manner the EPA has done in its prior regional transport
rulemakings, State implementation plans addressing the obligations in
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) must prohibit ``any source or other type
of emissions activity within the State'' from emitting air pollutants
which will contribute significantly to downwind air quality problems.
Thus, states must undertake an analysis similar to the EPA's analysis
(or an alternative approach to defining ``significance'' that comports
with the statute's objectives) to determine whether and to what degree
emissions from a State should be ``prohibited'' to eliminate emissions
that will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment in or interfere
with maintenance of'' the NAAQS in any other state. See 88 FR at 9342-
43, 9375-76.
In general, where the EPA's or state-provided alternative air
quality and contribution modeling establishes that a State is linked at
Steps 1 and 2, it will be insufficient at Step 3 for a State merely to
point to its existing rules requiring control measures as a basis for
SIP submission approval. In general, the emissions-reducing effects of
all existing emissions control requirements are already reflected in
the future year projected air quality results of the modeling for Steps
1 and 2.
If the State is shown to still be linked to one or more downwind
receptor(s) despite these existing controls, but that State believes it
has no outstanding good neighbor obligations, the EPA expects the State
to provide sufficient justification to support a conclusion that the
State has adequate provisions prohibiting ``any source or other type of
emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutant in
amounts which will'' ``contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or
interfere with maintenance by,'' any other State with respect to the
NAAQS. See CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). While the EPA has not
prescribed a particular method for this assessment, the EPA expects
states at a minimum to present a sufficient technical evaluation. This
would typically include information on emissions sources, applicable
control technologies, emissions reductions, costs, cost-effectiveness,
and downwind air quality impacts of the estimated reductions, before
concluding that no additional emissions controls should be
required.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ As examples of general approaches for how such an analysis
could be conducted for their sources, states could look to the CSAPR
Update, 81 FR 74504, 74539-51; CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48246-63; CAIR,
70 FR 25162, 25195-229; or the NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57356,
57399-405. See also Revised CSAPR Update, 86 FR 23054, 23086-23116.
Consistently across these rulemakings, the EPA has developed
emissions inventories, analyzed different levels of control
stringency at different cost thresholds, and assessed resulting
downwind air quality improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in section III.A. in this document, the EPA and states
must give independent significance to Prong 1 (significant contribution
to nonattainment) and Prong 2 (interference with maintenance) when
evaluating downwind air quality problems under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\67\ The EPA gives effect to Prong 2 through
identifying receptors that may have trouble attaining the NAAQS under
varying air quality and meteorological conditions. EME Homer City
upheld the EPA's approach to using cost to determine ``amounts'' with
respect to both Prong 1 and 2. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 572
U.S. at 518-520. The EPA's use of the term ``significant contribution''
in its analysis at the third step of the 4-step interstate transport
framework is applied for both Prongs 1 and 2. This approach to giving
effect to the ``interfere with maintenance'' prong has been upheld
twice by the D.C. Circuit. See EME Homer City, 795 F.3d at 136;
Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 325-27. In effect, the EPA's determination of
what level of upwind contribution constitutes ``interference'' with a
maintenance receptor is the same determination as what constitutes
``significant contribution'' for a nonattainment receptor. Nonetheless,
this continues to give independent effect to Prong 2 because the EPA
applies a broader definition for identifying maintenance receptors,
which accounts for the possibility of problems maintaining the NAAQS
under realistic potential future conditions. While the EPA and others
may occasionally use the language of ``significance'' as a shorthand
for determinations at the third step under both Prongs 1 and 2, this
does not detract from the fact that the EPA gives Prong 2 independent
effect under the 4-step interstate transport framework. Alternative
approaches to defining and prohibiting emissions that ``interfere with
maintenance'' must be, like the EPA's approach, legally and technically
justified and give effect to the language of the statute in a manner
that ensures states' good neighbor obligations are defined in a
consistent and equitable manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909-11 (D.C. Cir.
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in section IV.B. and V.A. of this document, no states
whose SIP submissions the EPA is proposing to partially disapprove in
this action conducted an adequate analysis at Step 3, following either
the EPA's approach or an alternative approach. As explained in section
I.A. of this document and further detailed in section VI. of this
document, the EPA is proposing to apply the same Step 3 analysis and
methodology completed in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan for 23 states
to the additional states of Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and
Tennessee. The EPA's approach to Step 3 is explained in section
III.B.1.c. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 88 FR 36654, at 36678.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Step 4 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
At Step 4, states (or the EPA) develop permanent and federally-
enforceable control strategies to achieve the emissions reductions
determined to be necessary at Step 3 to eliminate significant
contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the
NAAQS, as necessary to comply with the terms of the good neighbor
provision requiring that SIPs (or FIPs) ``contain adequate provisions
prohibiting'' such emissions. 88 FR at 9343. These control strategies
[[Page 12682]]
must be included in the State's SIP so that they are made permanent and
federally enforceable. See CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) (``Each such [SIP]
shall . . . contain adequate provisions--prohibiting . . .''). See also
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A); Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d
1169, 1175-76 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that measures relied on by a
State to meet CAA requirements must be included in the SIP submission).
As with the previous steps of the framework, as explained in
section I.A. of this document and further detailed in section VII. of
this document, in proposing FIPs for Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico,
and Tennessee, the EPA is proposing to implement necessary emissions
reductions through the same set of permanent and enforceable measures
promulgated for 23 other states in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The
EPA's approach to Step 4 is explained in section III.B.1.d. of the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ 88 FR 36654, at 36684.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. SIP Submissions Addressing Interstate Transport of Air Pollution
for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
A. SIP Summaries
1. Arizona
On September 24, 2018, the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) submitted to the EPA the ``Arizona State Implementation
Plan Revision under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (``Arizona's
2018 SIP Submission''). Arizona's 2018 SIP Submission addresses the
``infrastructure'' requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), including the
good neighbor provisions under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), for the
2015 ozone NAAQS.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Letter dated September 24, 2018, from Timothy S. Franquist,
Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Michael Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``Submittal of the Arizona
State Implementation Plan Revision under Clean Air Act sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona's 2018 SIP Submission describes the 4-step interstate
transport framework established by the EPA to address the good neighbor
provision.\71\ Arizona references the results of the ozone modeling
completed by the EPA using CAMx version 6.40 and 2011 base year, made
available in the March 2018 memorandum, to identify downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors that may be impacted by
emissions from sources in the State at Steps 1 and 2 of the 4-step
interstate transport framework. Arizona noted that the modeling results
cited in the March 2018 memorandum demonstrate that Arizona is not
shown to contribute greater than 1 percent of the NAAQS (i.e., 0.70
ppb) to any of the modeled nonattainment or maintenance receptors in
other states.\72\ Despite asserting that ``Arizona still maintains that
the one percent threshold is poorly suited for determining contribution
obligations in the Southwestern US,'' Arizona relies on the
contribution threshold of 1 percent of the NAAQS at Step 2.\73\ Based
on the model results cited in Arizona's 2018 iSIP Submission, Arizona
finds that it does not contribute significantly to nonattainment or
maintenance receptors in other states and that it is not necessary to
identify emissions reductions or adopt any permanent or enforceable
controls under the interstate transport provision for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.\74\ Arizona also asserts that the Arizona SIP contains adequate
provisions to ensure that air emissions in Arizona will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other State in the future.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Arizona's 2018 SIP submission, 12.
\72\ Id. at 13.
\73\ Id.
\74\ Id.
\75\ Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior Notices Related to Arizona's SIP Submission
On June 24, 2022, the EPA proposed to approve Arizona's 2018 iSIP
Submission as meeting the good neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.\76\ Our proposed approval was based upon the conclusion that
Arizona was not linked to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance
receptors, which was supported by the 2016v2 modeling described in the
notice of proposed rulemaking for the proposed approval.\77\ In
response to that proposed rulemaking, the EPA received one comment
letter providing evidence to suggest that Arizona likely contributes
significantly to interstate ozone pollution. The commenter alleged that
the 2016v2 modeling arbitrarily omits Arizona contributions to monitors
in El Paso County, Texas, and Do[ntilde]a Ana County, New Mexico, and
that Arizona is likely to significantly contribute to ozone
concentrations at these receptors. The commenter also incorporated by
reference comments that the commenter submitted in response to the
EPA's April 6, 2022, proposed FIP addressing regional ozone transport
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, identifying additional alleged flaws and
omissions in the 2016v2 modeling.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ 87 FR 37776 (June 24, 2022).
\77\ 87 FR 37776, 37782.
\78\ 87 FR 20036 (April 6, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in section III.B. of this document, the EPA
constructed its 2016v3 emissions platform to update ozone transport
modeling in response to these and similar comments received on the
2016v2 modeling and to develop the 2016v3 air quality modeling. The EPA
also recognized that monitoring data for 2021 and 2022 supported
recognizing additional, violating-monitor receptors. The EPA used this
updated air quality analysis to inform its final Disapproval and
Federal Good Neighbor Plan actions.79 80 As described later
in section IV.B.1. of this document, the 2016v3 modeling and violating-
monitor receptor methodology identifies Arizona's maximum contribution
to numerous downwind maintenance receptors to be greater than 1 percent
of the standard (i.e., greater than 0.70 ppb). Because the latest
available modeling indicates that Arizona is linked to downwind
maintenance receptors, the EPA is now withdrawing its 2022 proposed
approval of Arizona's 2018 SIP Submission with respect to CAA section
110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ ``Air Plan Disapprovals; Interstate Transport of Air
Pollution for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,'' 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023), and ``Federal ``Good
Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,'' 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
\80\ Details on the 2016v3 air quality modeling and the methods
for projecting design values and determining contributions in 2023
and 2026 are described in the TSD titled ``Air Quality Modeling
Final Rule TSD--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan,'' hereafter
known as the Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. New Mexico
The EPA made a finding in 2019 that New Mexico had failed to submit
a complete good neighbor SIP submission. See 84 FR 66612 (December 4,
2019). This triggered the EPA's obligation to promulgate a FIP for New
Mexico within 2 years. When the EPA failed to do so, multiple parties
brought deadline-suit litigation against the Agency. This resulted in a
consent decree deadline of June 1, 2024, to either promulgate a FIP for
New Mexico or approve a SIP submission fully resolving New Mexico's
good neighbor obligations. WildEarth Guardians v. Regan, No. 22-cv-
00174-RB-GBW (D.N.M. Aug. 16, 2022); Sierra Club v. Regan, No. 3:22-cv-
01992-JD (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2023). By stipulation of the parties, that
deadline has now been extended to August 30, 2024. The EPA's duty to
promulgate a FIP for New
[[Page 12683]]
Mexico can only be suspended by the approval of a SIP submission. As
discussed in section IV.B. of this document, the EPA proposes to
disapprove the SIP submission New Mexico subsequently submitted,
described below. This disapproval, if finalized, would not alter or
reset the EPA's pre-existing obligation to promulgate a FIP for New
Mexico.
On July 27, 2021, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)
submitted a SIP submission certifying that the State's SIP satisfies
requirements of interstate transport of air pollution for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. On June 9, 2021, on behalf of the City of Albuquerque
Environmental Health Department (EHD), the Cabinet Secretary of NMED
submitted to the EPA a certification that Albuquerque-Bernalillo
County, and New Mexico as a whole, ``does not cause or contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in
any other state.'' \81\ NMED and EHD's submission contained what NMED
characterized as a weight of evidence analysis of New Mexico's
contribution to ozone transport receptors using the data provided in
the EPA's modeling results included as an attachment to the March 2018
memorandum. New Mexico did not explicitly follow the 4-step interstate
transport framework but did examine downwind air quality and New
Mexico's contributions using the analytic year of 2023 to describe New
Mexico's linkages to receptors. On July 5, 2023, NMED submitted a
supplemental letter containing Exhibit A, for the EPA's consideration
in the Agency's review of the NMED and EHD SIP submissions. The
following sections describe NMED and EHD's submissions, including
Exhibit A, and the information provided for each step in the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See EHD SIP submission, attachment B, page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding Step 1
For Step 1 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, NMED and
EHD SIP submissions relied on the EPA's interstate transport modeling
results that are included as an attachment to the March 2018
memorandum.\82\ These EPA modeling results, using a 2011 base year,
provided: (1) projected average design value and maximum design value
for 2023 for ozone monitors to identify nonattainment or maintenance
receptors and (2) projected average contribution from State emissions
to the projected ozone concentrations at each ozone monitor to identify
upwind state-to-downwind receptor linkages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ As explained in section IV.A.2.c., NMED's Exhibit A
acknowledged the EPA's 2016v3 modeling results and linkages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding Step 2
NMED and EHD's submission presented New Mexico's projected 2023
ozone contributions to maintenance and nonattainment receptors using
the projections from the EPA's March 2018 memorandum. The State
agencies state that in past rulemakings, the EPA has relied upon the 1
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS standard (0.70 ppb) contribution
threshold when evaluating if an upwind State has a ``potentially
significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance'' \83\ impacts air quality in a downwind state. New Mexico
began their Step 2 analysis by using the EPA's 1 percent threshold to
evaluate contribution and identified that the State contributes 1
percent or more of the NAAQS to one maintenance receptor: Weld County
Tower, Colorado (Monitor ID: 081230009), and one nonattainment
receptor, Rocky Flats-N, Colorado (Monitor ID:
080590006).84 85 Additionally, the EPA's March 2018
memorandum modeling indicated that upwind states contribute roughly 8
and 10 percent of the modeled 2023 design value at the Weld County
receptor and the Rocky Flats-N receptor, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ EHD's SIP submission Attachment B, page 7.
\84\ Id. at Table 1, page 4.
\85\ Id. at page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, NMED and EHD argue that New Mexico does not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance at the
Weld County Tower and Rocky Flats-N receptors. NMED and EHD assert that
a ``weight of evidence'' analysis is more appropriate than relying on a
single, national standard for identifying linkages and determining
whether contributions from an upwind State are significant. NMED and
EHD believe that New Mexico should not be linked to Colorado receptors
in the EPA's transport Step 2 analysis because the majority of the
contribution to these receptors comes directly from Colorado. NMED and
EHD attempt to justify this position by relying on a previous transport
rulemaking that determined certain monitoring sites in California were
not interstate transport receptors. Specifically, New Mexico references
the approval of Arizona's 2008 ozone transport SIP submission, see 81
FR 31513. In that action, the EPA determined that Arizona did not
significantly contribute to two California monitoring sites despite
contributing more than 1 percent of the NAAQS, because the EPA found
the total collective contribution from all upwind states was so low at
these sites that they need not be considered transport receptors. New
Mexico attempts to expand the application of the EPA's reasoning in the
Arizona action, asserting it would also be appropriate not to link New
Mexico, or the other linked upwind states, to the Colorado receptors at
the 1 percent threshold.
NMED and EHD's submission also claims that the relative share of
in-state versus out-of-state contribution in Colorado, topographical
influences on the transport of ozone in Colorado, and other air quality
information support its ``weight-of-evidence'' analysis. To identify
the portion of ozone levels in Colorado coming from in-state emissions
as opposed to upwind-state emissions, New Mexico relied on the EPA's
2018 memorandum modeling data. Based on this data, NMED and EHD
determined in-state emissions outweighed the portion of emissions
coming from upwind states collectively.
NMED and EHD considered the topological influences on ozone
concentrations in the Denver area based on information prepared by
Colorado to support the final 2015 ozone NAAQS designation of the
Denver area.\86\ NMED and EHD assert in their submissions that the
receptors in Colorado are predominantly impacted from local sources and
thus the minimal contributions from upwind states do not warrant
further controls in New Mexico. They contend that the topography of the
Denver nonattainment area (NAA) disproportionally favors the formation
of ozone due to local emissions. As support for their argument, NMED
and EHD point to the EPA's TSD supporting the designation of the Denver
NAA: ``The three key circulation patterns (drainage flow, upslope flow,
and mountain-plains solenoid circulation), in conjunction with the
surface topography, in the [Denver] area serve to trap emissions and
produce ozone in the basin formed by the surrounding higher elevation
features. Further, these circulation patterns serve to recirculate
prior day emissions into the Denver area population centers as the
mountain-plains solenoid flow lifts the polluted atmosphere up the
mountain slopes of the Rocky Mountains to the west in warm afternoons,
and then returns the polluted air to the surface as the lofted air
circulates back to the east and
[[Page 12684]]
subsides overnight.'' \87\ New Mexico presents this information to
further support their claim that the Denver NAA is significantly more
impacted by emissions from within Colorado than from interstate
transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Id. at page 17. See also 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
\87\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-05/documents/co_tsd_final_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMED and EHD's final weight of evidence factor consisted of an
assessment of ozone air quality monitoring data and design values.
Here, they identify downward trends in ozone precursor emissions
(NOX and VOC) from 2005 to 2018. NMED and EHD cite New
Mexico's current on-the-books rules as sufficient to resolve the
State's transport responsibilities and as reason to believe downward
trends in emissions and ozone concentrations at the receptors for which
they contribute greater than 0.70 ppb (Rock Flats-N and Well County
Tower monitors) will continue to decrease. NMED included data on an
overall trend of slightly increasing VOC emissions and decreasing
NOX emissions in New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, California, and
Texas from 2002 to 2014. New Mexico also provided data exhibiting a
decrease of VOC and NOX emissions from Colorado during the
same time period. New Mexico credited the downward emissions trends to
permanent and enforceable control measures. New Mexico made an argument
that overall decreasing ozone concentrations and emissions trends in
the state, and other upwind states, correlate with reduced
contributions to nonattainment and maintenance receptors outside of New
Mexico. NMED and EHD concluded that decreasing ambient ozone
concentrations in Colorado is indicative of New Mexico contributing
less to ozone in downwind states as time goes on.
This concluded New Mexico's analysis in its original submission.
New Mexico did not conduct an analysis of emissions-control
opportunities within the State at Step 3. NMED and EHD concluded it
would be unreasonable for New Mexico to take further actions to address
its obligations under the good neighbor provisions for the ozone NAAQS.
Thus, at Step 4, NMED and EHD determined that no additional permanent
and enforceable measures were necessary to reduce the State's
emissions.
c. New Mexico Letter
On July 5, 2023, NMED submitted for the EPA's consideration a
letter with an attachment, Exhibit A. The letter indicates its
submission is in response to the EPA's indication that it may
disapprove New Mexico's SIP submission. To the EPA's awareness, this
letter was not subject to public notice or rulemaking process at the
State level and does not in itself purport to be a SIP submission or a
revision to New Mexico's SIP. As such, the EPA takes the information in
the letter under advisement but does not consider this letter to be a
new SIP submission in its own right or part of the SIP submission dated
July 27, 2021.
In its letter, NMED asserts the EPA should account for emissions
reductions that have occurred since 2020 that could resolve the State's
transport obligations. NMED identified emissions reductions from two
current compliance orders that resulted in a reduction of 236 tons of
annual NOX emissions. NMED entered into a settlement
agreement with ETC Texas Pipeline Ltd (ETC) for its Jal #3 plant,
compliance order No. AQB 20-63, which was lodged on August 25, 2021.
The settlement agreement mandated that the facility remove its sulfur
recovery unit, which resulted in an emissions reduction of 4.8 tons of
NOX per year. Additionally, NMED entered into a consent
decree with ETC for its Eunice Gas Plant, compliance order No. AQB 20-
64, which was lodged on September 9, 2021. The consent decree required
the shutdown of the Eunice plant, except for Amanda Booster Station,
resulting in emissions decrease of 231.4 tons of NOX per
year. Lastly, NMED references emissions reductions anticipated from the
consent decree lodged with Matador Production Company, filed on March
27, 2023. NMED is anticipating emissions reductions of a total 77 tons
of NOX over 3 years and to occur before 2030.
NMED argues that the emissions reductions resulting from these
compliance orders are satisfactory to fulfil the emissions reductions
that would occur under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan for the 2015
Ozone Standard. NMED states that based on the formula applied under the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA identified 30 tons of emissions
reductions achievable in 2023 under the current formula for EGU
emissions reductions.\88\ NMED claims that the ``EPA indicated that
this 30 ton per year reduction would be all that is necessary to meet
its good neighbor FIP requirements.'' \89\ NMED argues that as the
NOX emissions decreases outlined in the provided consent
decrees are greater than the emissions reductions anticipated in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the State will have met its obligations for
interstate transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Final Rule Technical
Support Document. Table B-3. 2024 Ozone Season NOX
Emissions for States at Different Uniform Control Scenarios.
\89\ NMED's July 5, 2023, letter to the EPA, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Tennessee
On September 13, 2018, Tennessee submitted a SIP revision
addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.90 91 The SIP
submission provided Tennessee's analysis of its impact to downwind
states and concluded that emissions from the State will not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states. Tennessee's submission
relied on the EPA's modeling results for 2023 using a 2011 base year,
contained in the March 2018, memorandum, to identify downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors that may be impacted by
emissions from sources in the State at Steps 1 and 2 of the 4-step
interstate transport framework.\92\ The Tennessee Department of
Environmental Control (TDEC) reviewed the EPA's 2023 modeling,
concurred with the results, and determined that the EPA's future year
projections were reasonable and account for source shutdowns, new
controls, and fuel switches. TDEC summarized the State's upwind
contribution to 26 nonattainment and maintenance receptors and noted
that according to the modeling, Tennessee's largest impact on any
potential downwind receptor in 2023 would be 0.31 ppb to a
nonattainment receptor and 0.65 ppb to a maintenance receptor.
Tennessee concluded that emissions from Tennessee do not contribute
above 1 percent of the NAAQS or above 1 ppb at any receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ The September 13, 2019, SIP submission provided by TDEC was
received by the EPA on September 17, 2018.
\91\ On September 18, 2018, Tennessee submitted multiple SIP
revisions under one cover letter. The EPA is only acting on
Tennessee's 2015 ozone good neighbor interstate transport SIP
requirements in this document.
\92\ The EPA notes that Tennessee's SIP submission is not
organized around the EPA's 4-step interstate transport framework for
assessing good neighbor obligations, but the EPA summarizes the
submission using that framework for clarity here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee's submission asserted that NOX emissions are
considered the primary cause of formation of ozone in the southeast
United States, and emphasized a significant reduction in NOX
emissions reductions from coal-fired EGUs and other large
NOX sources leading to improvements in air quality,
including reductions attributable to
[[Page 12685]]
previous transport rulemakings.\93\ Additionally, TDEC identifies
existing SIP-approved provisions, Federal regulations and programs,
court settlements, and statewide source shutdowns that TDEC believes
limit ozone precursor emissions in the State.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ The Tennessee SIP revision specifically cites the
NOX Budget Trading Program, CAIR, and CSAPR. In addition,
the Tennessee SIP revision discusses Tennessee rule 1200-03-27-.12
(NOX SIP Call requirements for Stationary Boilers and
Combustion Turbines), which had not been approved into the SIP at
the time of the September 13, 2018, submission. The EPA finalized
approval of TAPR 1200-03-27-.12 into the Tennessee SIP on March 2,
2021. See 86 FR 12092.
\94\ See page 9 through 12 of Tennessee's September 13, 2018,
SIP submission for a list of SIP-approved State rules and Federal
rules. This can be found in Docket No. EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0841.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information contained in Tennessee's transport SIP
submission, TDEC concluded that Tennessee does not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in another
State of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and that the SIP submission
provides for adequate measures to control ozone precursor emissions.
Prior Notices Related to Tennessee's SIP Submission
Previously, the EPA proposed approval of Tennessee's September 13,
2018, SIP submission, based on the contribution modeling provided in
the March 2018 memorandum. See 84 FR 71854 (December 30, 2019). When
the EPA completed updated modeling of the 2023 analytic year in 2020
using a 2016-based emissions modeling platform (2016v1), however, it
became evident that Tennessee was projected to be linked to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors.\95\ As a result, the EPA did
not act on Tennessee's SIP submission when it published a supplemental
proposal in 2021 to approve four other southeastern states' good
neighbor SIP submissions, using the updated 2023 modeling. See 86 FR
37942, 37943 (July 19, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ See ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for
the Final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update'', available
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2016v2 modeling comported with the 2016v1 modeling results for
Tennessee, in that it continued to show Tennessee was linked to at
least one downwind-maintenance-only receptor in 2023. Based on this
information and the EPA's evaluation of the information and arguments
put forward by the State in its submission, the EPA withdrew its
December 30, 2019, proposed approval of Tennessee's September 13, 2018,
interstate transport SIP submission, and the EPA proposed disapproval
of Tennessee's submission. See 87 FR 9545 (February 22, 2022).
As described in section III.C. of this document, the EPA received
numerous comments on the 2016v2 modeling used in its proposed ozone
transport actions, including its proposed disapproval of Tennessee's
submission. The EPA incorporated this feedback and made several updates
to the 2016v2 inventories and model design to construct a 2016v3
emissions platform, which the EPA used to develop the 2016v3 air
quality modeling. The EPA used the 2016v3 modeling to support the final
action on 21 interstate transport SIP submissions for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.96 97 The Agency also found there were additional
receptors that would struggle to attain or maintain the NAAQS in 2023,
which it identified as violating-monitor receptors. The final air
quality analysis modeling indicated that while Tennessee was no longer
projected in the modeling to be linked to any nonattainment or
maintenance receptors, the State was linked above 1 percent of the
NAAQS to five violating-monitor receptors, all located in Texas. See
2016v3 AQM TSD, at C-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Disapproval Action, 88 FR 9336 (February 13, 2023), and
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, 88 FR 36654 (June 5, 2023).
\97\ Details on the 2016v3 air quality modeling and the methods
for projecting design values and determining contributions in 2023
and 2026 are described in the TSD titled ``Air Quality Modeling
Final Rule TSD--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan,'' hereafter
known as the Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the EPA identified a linkage between emissions in
Tennessee and violating-monitor receptors, in recognition that it had
not included such receptors in its proposed action, the EPA did not
take final action on Tennessee's transport SIP submission at that time.
The EPA is now withdrawing its proposed disapproval of Tennessee's
September 13, 2018, interstate transport SIP submission as published on
February 22, 2022, at 87 FR 9545.
B. EPA Evaluation
The EPA is proposing to find that SIP submissions from Arizona, New
Mexico, and Tennessee meet the states' obligations with respect to
Prong 1, prohibiting emissions that contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but do not meet
obligations with respect to Prong 2, interference with maintenance of
the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state. This proposal is based
on the EPA's evaluation of each State's SIP submission, considered in
light of the state-of-the-science 2016v3 modeling for 2023 and 2026,
the certified ozone monitoring data and design values for 2021 and
2022, and corresponding contribution analysis. Therefore, the EPA is
proposing to partially approve with respect to Prong 1 and partially
disapprove with respect to Prong 2 the SIP submissions from Arizona,
New Mexico, and Tennessee.
1. Arizona
a. Evaluation of Information Provided by Arizona Regarding Steps 1 and
2
In Arizona's 2018 SIP Submission, the State cites the EPA modeling
released in the March 2018 memorandum to conclude that Arizona does not
contribute significantly (i.e., equal to or above the 0.70 ppb
threshold) to any nonattainment or maintenance receptor in another
state.\98\ In this proposal, the EPA relies on the Agency's 2016v3
modeling, which uses a more recent base year and more up-to-date
emissions inventories, compared to the modeling that was released in
the March 2018 memo. The 2016v3 modeling along with the violating-
monitor receptor methodology are used to identify downwind receptors,
calculate upwind contributions, and determine ``linkages'' to downwind
air quality problems in 2023 using the 0.70 ppb threshold (i.e., 1
percent of the NAAQS). As shown in Tables IV.B-1-3, the updated EPA
contribution modeling identifies Arizona's maximum contribution to a
downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor to be greater than 1
percent of the standard (i.e., greater than 0.70 ppb). Because the
entire technical basis for Arizona's determination with respect to CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in its 2018 SIP Submission is that Arizona
is not linked at Step 2, the EPA proposes to partially disapprove
Arizona's SIP submission with respect to Prong 2, interference with
maintenance, based on the EPA's finding that such a linkage does exist
to maintenance-only receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ Arizona's 2018 iSIP submission, 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Results of the EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 Modeling and Findings for
Arizona
As described in section III.B. of this document, the EPA performed
air quality modeling using the 2016v3 emissions platform to project
design values and contributions for 2023 and 2026. These data were
examined to determine if Arizona contributes at or above the threshold
of 1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to any downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor. As shown in Table IV.B-1, the
data indicate that, in
[[Page 12686]]
2023, emissions from Arizona contribute greater than 1 percent of the
2015 ozone NAAQS to six maintenance-only receptors in Colorado, Nevada,
New Mexico, and Texas.\99\ Table IV.B.1-3 indicates that in 2023,
emissions from Arizona contribute greater than 1 percent of the NAAQS
to three violating-monitor maintenance-only receptors in Nevada and New
Mexico. Furthermore, data for 2026 in Table IV.B.1-2 indicate that
emissions from Arizona contribute greater than 1 percent of the 2015
ozone NAAQS to five maintenance-only receptors in Colorado and New
Mexico.\100\ In addition, Arizona's contribution exceeds 1 ppb at five
receptors in 2023 and two receptors in 2026. Thus, whether Arizona
could have sought to justify an alternative 1 ppb threshold is
irrelevant to EPA's determination that Arizona is linked, as Arizona's
contributions to receptors exceed even that higher alternative
contribution threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD, Appendix C, available in
Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668.
\100\ Id.
Table IV.B.1-1--Arizona Linkage Results Based on the EPA Updated 2023 Modeling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 Average 2023 Maximum Arizona
Receptor ID Location Nonattainment/ design value design value contribution
maintenance (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80690011..................... Larimer, Maintenance- 70.9 72.1 0.86
Colorado. Only.
350130021.................... Do[ntilde]a Maintenance- 70.8 72.1 1.04
Ana, New Only.
Mexico.
350130022.................... Do[ntilde]a Maintenance- 69.7 72.4 1.06
Ana, New Only.
Mexico.
350151005.................... Eddy, New Maintenance- 69.7 74.1 1.34
Mexico. Only.
350250008.................... Lea, New Mexico Maintenance- 69.8 72.2 1.66
Only.
481410037.................... El Paso, Texas. Maintenance- 69.8 71.4 1.69
Only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
Table IV.B.1-2--Arizona Linkage Results Based on the EPA Updated 2026 Modeling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026 Average 2026 Maximum Arizona
Receptor ID Location Nonattainment/ design value design value contribution
maintenance (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80690011..................... Larimer, Maintenance- 70.0 71.2 0.71
Colorado. Only.
350130021.................... Do[ntilde]a Maintenance- 69.9 71.2 0.82
Ana, New Only.
Mexico.
350130022.................... Do[ntilde]a Maintenance- 69.0 71.6 0.82
Ana, New Only.
Mexico.
350151005.................... Eddy, New Maintenance- 69.1 73.4 1.06
Mexico. Only.
350250008.................... Lea, New Mexico Maintenance- 69.2 71.6 1.34
Only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
Table IV.B.1-3--Arizona 2023 Linkage Results Based on Violating-Monitor Maintenance-Only Receptors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona
Receptor ID Location 2021 Design 2022 Design 2021 4th high 2022 4th high contribution
value (ppb) value (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
320030043................................. Clark, Nevada............... 73 75 74 74 0.77
350011012................................. Bernalillo, New Mexico...... 72 73 76 74 1.62
350130008................................. Do[ntilde]a Ana, New Mexico. 76 71 79 78 1.13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
Therefore, based on the EPA's evaluation of the information
submitted by Arizona, and based on the EPA's most recent modeling
results for 2023 and 2026 using the 2016v3 emissions platform, the EPA
proposes to find that Arizona is not linked to any nonattainment
receptor. However, the EPA finds that Arizona is linked at Steps 1 and
2 to at least one, and in fact several, maintenance-only receptors,
based on the available analytical information, which includes the
modeling results from the 2016v3 platform and the violating-monitor
receptor analysis.
c. Evaluation of Information Provided Regarding Step 3
To determine what, if any, emissions significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance and, thus, must be
eliminated under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), at Step 3 of the 4-
step interstate transport framework, a state's emissions are further
evaluated, in light of multiple factors, including air quality and cost
considerations. The EPA recognizes that the modeling results released
with the March 2018 memorandum indicated Arizona would not contribute
at or above 1 percent of the NAAQS to any downwind receptor. Arizona's
2018 SIP Submission therefore concluded that it was not necessary to
identify any emissions reductions or adopt any permanent and
enforceable controls to meet the good neighbor provision for the 2015
ozone NAAQS.\101\ Arizona's 2018 SIP Submission states that ``Arizona
believes that this SIP contains adequate provisions to ensure that air
emissions in Arizona do not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other
State in the future.'' \102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Arizona's 2018 iSIP Submission, 13-14.
\102\ Id at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, as discussed previously in this section, the EPA's more
recent air quality analysis for 2023 and 2026
[[Page 12687]]
indicates that sources in Arizona are in fact contributing to downwind
air quality problems at several maintenance-only receptors. Based on
this record, the EPA finds the State's conclusion that its SIP contains
adequate provisions prohibiting emissions interfering with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states to lack justification, and the
EPA proposes to partially disapprove the submission.
d. Conclusion
For the reasons described in this section, the EPA proposes to
partially approve Arizona's SIP submission with respect to Prong 1 of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and to partially disapprove Arizona's
SIP submission with respect to Prong 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
2. New Mexico
a. Evaluation of Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding Step 1
As noted earlier, NMED and EHD first relied on the modeling
information from the EPA's March 2018 memorandum which used a 2011 base
period with 2011 meteorology to identify nonattainment and maintenance
receptors and upwind-state contribution levels at those receptors. NMED
and EHD acknowledged that this modeling showed a linkage to one
nonattainment and one maintenance-only receptor in the Denver area at
or above 0.70 ppb. Since the time of the State's submission, the EPA
updated the modeling to a 2016 base period with 2016 meteorology and
updated emissions data to produce new 2023 model projections and
released this new modeling in 2022 (commonly referred to as 2016v2
modeling platform). As explained in section III.C. of this document, in
response to comments, the EPA further refined its modeling in the
2016v3 modeling platform, issued in 2023.\103\ Under both the EPA's
2011-based modeling included in the March 2018 memorandum that New
Mexico relied upon in their SIP submission and the EPA's updated 2016v3
modeling, there are receptors identified, to which New Mexico is linked
above 1 percent of the NAAQS, as described in the next section.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan in Docket ID No. EPA-
R08-OAR-2023-0375.
\104\ The 2011 modeling relied on by NMED and EHD in the SIP
submission identified linkages to one nonattainment receptor, the
Rocky Flats-N receptor, and the one maintenance receptor, the Weld
County Tower receptor, in 2023. See NMED SIP Submission at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Evaluation of Information Provided by New Mexico Regarding Step 2
As in Step 1, NMED and EHD relied upon the modeling released in the
EPA's March 2018 memo, and in its July 2023 letter, NMED relied on the
EPA's 2016v3 modeling results to analyze projected contributions to
downwind receptors. As explained in section IV.A.2. of this document,
while NMED and EHD acknowledge the EPA's modeling results identifying a
contribution greater than 0.70 ppb, the agencies do not find it
appropriate to rely on a particular threshold (i.e., 0.70 ppb) at Step
2 to determine whether a State is linked (or significantly
contributing) to a downwind receptor in the West, but instead they rely
on a weight of evidence approach. NMED and EHD point to the EPA's past
approval of Arizona's 2008 ozone good neighbor SIP submission, in which
the EPA approved Arizona's SIP based on an evaluation of receptors in
California to support the use of a weight of evidence approach in
evaluating interstate transport and claim that the EPA determined a
weight of evidence approach to be an appropriate evaluation to apply in
the West.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ NMED SIP submission at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although NMED and EHD's approach to evaluating whether an upwind
State is linked to a downwind receptor differs from the EPA's broadly
applied 4-step interstate transport framework by relying instead on a
``weight of evidence'' approach, here, we evaluate that ``weight of
evidence'' methodology NMED has chosen to apply. While the NMED and EHD
submission does not claim to establish a linkage, and instead
postulates that it is inappropriate to apply a uniform standard to
determine whether a State's contributions should be further evaluated
in Step 3, the submission does rely on a 1 percent threshold to
identify which receptors to apply a weight of evidence analysis.
Therefore, while the NMED and EHD submission seems to disagree in
principle with the use of a single threshold at Step 2, they have
effectively moved to apply the same threshold for the same purpose the
EPA would do at Step 2--rely on a 1 percent threshold to identify
receptors to which a State is linked and therefore require further
evaluation at Step 3 to determine whether any of the State's
contributions, if any, are significant.
While the EPA does not disagree with the methodology NMED and EHD
used in the submission to identify receptors where the State is linked,
the EPA continues to find its 4-step interstate transport framework to
be an appropriate and nationally consistent approach to evaluating
interstate transport, including the application of a contribution
threshold at Step 2 of the framework. As stated in the EPA's final SIP
disapproval action, the EPA disagrees with the NMED and EHD submission
that neither its nationwide photochemical grid modeling nor the 4-step
interstate transport framework for ozone can generally be applied to
states in the western region of the U.S., including contributions from
sources in New Mexico, and has maintained that position consistently
throughout numerous actions.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ For a discussion of this history, see for example 87 FR
31480-81 (proposed disapproval of Utah SIP submission) and 87 FR
31453-56 (proposed disapproval of California SIP submission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NMED and EHD submission cites the EPA's action on Arizona's
2008 ozone good neighbor SIP as evidence that the EPA relied on a
weight of evidence approach when evaluating interstate transport in the
West. In that action, the EPA considered the collective contribution
from upwind states to monitoring sites in California as part of the
basis for approval of the State's submission, despite linkages over 1
percent from Arizona to a select few California monitoring sites. The
EPA disagrees that New Mexico's contribution to Colorado is comparable
to the situation addressed in the Arizona 2008 ozone good neighbor
action. The facts that supported the EPA's conclusion on Arizona's 2008
ozone good neighbor SIP were unique; in the Disapproval action and
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA has already explained that it
rejects that a comparable consideration is relevant for receptors in
Colorado, which the EPA has consistently found are impacted by the
collective contribution of numerous upwind states at levels that well
exceed the circumstances of the California sites. See 88 FR at 9378-79
(western State policy generally); id. at 9360 (rejecting similar
arguments in disapproving SIP submission from Utah); see also Response
To Comments Document, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663, at 236-237. At times the
EPA has found it appropriate to examine more closely discreet issues
for some western states; \107\ however, the EPA has consistently
applied the 4-step interstate transport framework in western states, as
it proposes to do in this action, and
[[Page 12688]]
has previously identified ozone transport problems in the West,
including in Colorado, that are similar to those in the east.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ See, e.g., 87 FR 61249, 61254-55 (October 11, 2022) (in
approving Colorado's interstate transport SIP for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS, analyzing unique issues associated with wintertime inversion
conditions in certain western areas).
\108\ See, e.g., 87 FR 31443, 31453-57 (May 24, 2022); 83 FR
65093, 65094 (December 19, 2018); 82 FR 9155, 9157 (February 3,
2017); 82 FR 9142, 9149-50 (February 3, 2017); 81 FR 74504, 74523
(October 26, 2016); 81 FR 71991, 71993-95 (October 19, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico claims that the Weld County Tower and Rocky Flats-N
receptors are impacted by the same magnitude of contributions from
interstate transport as the California receptors were in the approval
of the Arizona transport SIP submission. This, however, is not
represented in the data presented in NMED and EHD's submittals. Total
upwind contributions were 10 percent and 8 percent of the projected
2023 design values at the Rocky Flats-N and Weld County Tower
receptors, respectively, and five states were determined to be linked
at or above 1 percent of the NAAQS. The results show that the upwind
contributions to Colorado are significantly greater than the upwind
contributions to the monitors evaluated in California when taking
action on Arizona's 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP submission, where the total
contribution from all upwind states was 2.5 percent and 4.4 percent of
the total ozone concentration at the two monitoring sites in California
to which Arizona contributed greater than 1 percent.
The determination made to remove the identified California
receptors from the Step 1 analysis, done in the context of the less
protective 2008 ozone NAAQS, was a narrow circumstance that does not
apply in the vast majority of receptors outside of California. The data
presented by New Mexico suggests the circumstances that led the EPA to
remove California receptors from Step 1 do not apply to receptors in
Colorado. In previous rulemakings, for example, the EPA has, in fact,
determined that receptors in Colorado are heavily impacted by upwind-
state contribution. See, e.g., 82 FR 9155 (Feb. 3, 2017); 81 FR 71991
(October 19, 2016). The EPA affirms, contrary to NMED's assertion, that
the Colorado receptors that NMED analyzed are impacted by upwind State
contributions.\109\ In fact, nowhere outside California do we project
that there will be receptors having such a low total upwind
contribution as is the case for California.\110\ Further, at the El
Paso UTEP receptor (Monitor ID: 481410037) which, as shown in Table
IV.B.2-1, is the receptor to which emissions from sources in New Mexico
are linked, there are 2 states linked above 1 percent of the standard
and 6 percent of the ozone design values is due to the collective
contribution from upwind states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document--2015 Ozone NAAQS Good Neighbor Plan in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0668.
\110\ See 88 FR at 36718 regarding contribution to certain
monitoring sites in California and its relation to the EPA's
approval of Arizona's 2008 ozone NAAQS transport SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Results of EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 Modeling and Findings for New
Mexico
As described in section I. of this document, the EPA has performed
updated air quality modeling using the 2016v3 emissions platform to
project design values and contributions for 2023. These data were
examined to determine if the newer modeling also indicated that New
Mexico contributes at or above the threshold of 1 percent of the 2015
ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to any downwind nonattainment or maintenance
receptor. As shown in IV.B.2-1, the data \111\ indicates that in 2023,
emissions from New Mexico contribute greater than 1 percent of the
standard to a maintenance-only receptor in El Paso, Texas.\112\ New
Mexico is not linked to any violating-monitor receptors in 2023. Based
on the 2016v3 modeling, the average and maximum design values for the
El Paso monitor in 2026 are below the level of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. In
this regard, New Mexico is not projected to be linked to any receptors
in 2026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ Design values and contributions at individual monitoring
sites nationwide are provide in the file:'' 2016v3_Final
FIP_DVs_state_contributions.xlsx'' which is included in docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668.
\112\ These modeling results are consistent with the results of
a prior round of 2023 modeling using the 2016v1 emissions platform
which became available to the public in the fall of 2020 in the
Revised CSAPR Update, as noted in section I. of this document. That
modeling showed that New Mexico had a maximum contribution greater
than 0.70 ppb to at least one nonattainment or maintenance-only
receptor in 2023. These modeling results are included in the file
``Ozone Design Values And Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx''
in docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
Table IV.B.2-1--New Mexico Linkage Results Based on the EPA's Updated 2016v3 2023 Modeling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 Average 2023 Maximum New Mexico
Receptor ID Location Nonattainment/maintenance design value design value contribution
(ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
481410037.................................. El Paso, TX................. Maintenance................. 69.8 71.4 1.59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, based on the EPA's evaluation of the information
submitted by NMED and EHD, and based on the EPA's most recent modeling
results for 2023 and 2026 using the 2016v3 emissions platform, the EPA
proposes to find that New Mexico is not linked to a nonattainment
receptor. However, the EPA finds that New Mexico is linked at Steps 1
and 2 to a maintenance-only receptor in 2023. Therefore, the EPA will
proceed to evaluate NMED and EHD's SIP submission at Step 3 of the 4-
step interstate transport framework as it pertains to Prong 2,
interference with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
d. Evaluation of Information Provided Regarding Step 3
To determine what, if any, emissions significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance and, thus, must be
eliminated under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), at Step 3 of the 4-
step interstate transport framework, a state's emissions are further
evaluated, in light of multiple factors, including air quality and cost
considerations. NMED and EHD's initial SIP submission did not conduct
an analysis of emissions control opportunities within the state,
applying either the EPA's multifactor analysis at Step 3 or using any
other framework of analysis. Instead, the submission presents a three-
part ``weight of evidence'' analysis to determine no reductions are
needed beyond existing emissions reductions efforts to satisfy the
State's obligations with regards to the good neighbor provision.
NMED's July 2023 letter uses mass-based emissions reductions
identified on an ozone-season wide basis derived from the Step 3 (and
Step 4 analysis for EGUs) completed by the EPA in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan to identify the magnitude of emissions that NMED assumes
constitutes the identification of ``significant contribution'' that
must be eliminated to address the State's good
[[Page 12689]]
neighbor obligations. NMED's letter asserts that certain compliance
orders entered in recent years would achieve an equivalent or greater
amount of NOX emissions reduction (on a mass-basis) than the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan is projected to require from EGUs in New
Mexico.
In this section, we evaluate the State's weight of evidence
analysis submitted in the SIP submission, and then in the following
section (Section IV.B.2.e of this document) address the argument put
forward by NMED in the July 2023 letter.
As summarized in section IV.A.2. of this document, NMED and EHD's
weight of evidence consisted of three parts, (1) a comparison of in-
state emissions contributions and out-of-state contributions to the
receptors with linkages from New Mexico, (2) consideration of
topography and airflow associated with local ozone formation in the
Denver area, and (3) an evaluation of trends in emissions and ozone
concentrations at receptors with linkages and western states.
Regarding the first weight of evidence comparing in-state and out
of State emissions, the EPA disagrees that these factors are sufficient
to establish that New Mexico's emissions do not significantly
contribute to receptors in any other state. While NMED and EHD point to
a relatively higher level of contributions from non-anthropogenic,
local, or international contributions in the West as reason for
evaluating interstate transport differently in the West, a State is not
excused from eliminating its significant contribution due to
contributions from these sources, where the data show that
anthropogenic emissions from upwind states also contribute to
identified receptors at levels that indicate an interstate contribution
problem as well. As stated in section V.C.2. of the EPA's final SIP
Disapproval action, a State is not excused from eliminating its
significant contribution on the basis that international emissions also
contribute some amount of pollution to the same receptors to which the
State is linked. This same principle applies broadly to other arguments
as to which emissions are the ``cause'' of the problem; the good
neighbor provision established a contribution standard, not a ``but-
for'' causation standard. See Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 323-25. The EPA's
position on this issue is established in the SIP Disapproval action.
See 88 FR at 9378 (rejecting this argument as to international
contribution); Disapproval action RTC at 455-58 (rejecting this
argument as to in-state contribution); id. at 459-62 (rejecting this
argument as to non-anthropogenic contribution). Nor did New Mexico
offer a test or standard by which these considerations could be applied
on a principled basis to establish when, if they were relevant
considerations, they would justify a different approach for any
particular state. New Mexico only argued that these considerations
should excuse its own obligations.
The submission's second weight of evidence factor considers the
Denver area's topography and air flow direction. The EPA has evaluated
the information in the submission and proposes to determine that this
evidence does not provide sufficient reason to support NMED and EHD
submission's conclusion that the contributions from New Mexico to the
receptors identified by the EPA's modeling is not significant. The NMED
and EHD submission claims that the EPA had concluded that geographical
features (mountains, etc.) in and around the Denver NAA ``magnify and
constrain the influence of local emissions on air quality'' and ozone
production by citing the EPA's description of the region in the EPA's
designation of the Denver NAA for the 2015 ozone standard.
The EPA evaluated this argument thoroughly in the SIP Disapproval
action. The EPA explained, despite the local geographical features in
and around the Denver NAA substantial portion of the transport problem
at these receptors, on the order of 6-10 percent (depending on
individual receptor and modeling version used) is the result of
transport from states outside of Colorado. The EPA evaluated the
performance of its 2016v3 modeling in all areas of the country,
including in Colorado and in the southwest (where New Mexico is linked
to an El Paso receptor), and the Agency found the modeling performed
within parameters and is reliable for use to inform determinations of
contribution, even in areas of unique western topography. See RTC 171-
184. These same findings hold true for New Mexico's linkage, whether
assessed in relation to its contribution to Colorado receptors in the
2011-based modeling, or in the linkage to El Paso found in 2016v3
modeling.
The third weight of evidence provided in the SIP consists of
monitoring data and emissions data to justify their conclusion that no
additional emissions reductions would be necessary to satisfy New
Mexico's ozone transport obligations.
The NMED and EHD submission points to a projected downward trend of
ozone levels at monitors within the Colorado nonattainment area from
2008 to 2018, and VOC and NOX emissions reductions from 2002
to 2014 in states contributing above 1 percent of the NAAQS to the Weld
County or Rocky Flats-N receptors. The submission did not quantify the
total anticipated reductions in NOX and VOC emissions from
New Mexico's existing regulatory requirements nor did it evaluate the
impact of those reductions in downwind air quality at the Denver area
receptors to which New Mexico was projected to be linked in the 2011-
based modeling. In general, the air quality modeling that the EPA has
conducted already accounts for ``on-the-books'' emissions control
measures, including the expected reductions those measures achieve
through 2023. The 2016v3 modeling, which contains updated emissions
inventories for New Mexico and other states, established a continued
linkage from New Mexico to at least one downwind receptor in 2023 at
Steps 1 and 2, despite emissions control efforts in the State.\113\
Applying the submission's same logic in this weight of evidence to the
linkage identified in the EPA's 2016v3 modeling, the El Paso County,
Texas, receptor, the EPA identifies a similar flaw. Because a linkage
continues to occur under projected baseline emissions levels, the next
analytical step would be to conduct an analysis of emissions control
opportunities in the State to determine what, if any, emissions may
constitute ``significant contribution'' and therefore should be
prohibited. The EPA explained in the SIP Disapproval action that an
alternative approach of simply relying on emissions trends data,
without including those claimed reductions as enforceable control
measures within a SIP, is insufficient. 88 FR at 9354, 9356, 9378-79;
Response To Comments at 329-33. Similarly, emissions trends do not
themselves provide a principled basis for determining what ``amount''
of emissions constitutes ``significant contribution.'' See 88 FR at
9375-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ As the EPA explained in the final SIP Disapproval action,
the EPA views changes in linkages between 2011-based meteorology and
2016-based meteorology not as an indication of uncertainty in
whether a State is linked at Step 2 but rather as confirmation that
the State's emissions are substantial enough to generate linkages
under alternative meteorological data sets. As such, the changes in
linkage observed between the 2011-based and 2016v3 modeling for New
Mexico does not alter the EPA's findings or justify a less rigorous
analysis at Step 3--just as the EPA found for many other states in
connection with the Disapproval action. See 88 FR at 9367.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this evaluation of the weight of evidence analysis
provided in NMED and EHD's SIP submission, the EPA finds that the
analysis is insufficient to support the conclusion that the State
[[Page 12690]]
does not interfere with maintenance at receptors in other states. The
EPA's updated air quality analysis indicates New Mexico is not linked
to any nonattainment receptors but is linked to a maintenance-only
receptor in El Paso, Texas. Thus, the EPA proposes partial disapproval
of New Mexico's submission with respect to Prong 2.
e. NMED's July 2023 Letter
The EPA has considered the additional information New Mexico
provided in its July 2023 letter. At the outset, we note that this
letter did not undergo the requisite public rulemaking process at the
State level, so the EPA does not consider it to be either a SIP
submission itself or a supplement to New Mexico's existing submission.
See CAA section 110(a)(1), (2) (requiring public notice and hearing
requirements before SIP revisions may be submitted to EPA); id CAA
section 110(i) (prohibiting modifications of SIP requirements except as
conducted pursuant to mandated SIP revision procedures); id. CAA
section 110(l) (mandating analysis of all SIP revisions to ensure such
revisions do not interfere with any applicable requirements under the
Act). See also 40 CFR part 51, subpart F (setting forth minimum
procedural requirements for the preparation, adoption, and submittal of
implementation plans, including requirements of public notice and
hearing); id. Appendix V, section 2 (setting forth administrative
completeness criteria for State plan submissions including evidence of
compliance with procedural requirements). However, the letter was
provided to the EPA prior to this proposed document and the EPA has had
time to consider its contents; the EPA in its discretion will provide
its views on the relevance of the information contained in the letter.
In the letter, NMED explains that it believes the emissions
reductions required under certain compliance orders in New Mexico
applicable to several identified facilities will achieve greater
emissions reductions than what would be achieved for New Mexico's EGU
sources if those sources were subject to the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan. NMED asserts that the EPA identified in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan that the control requirements for EGUs would achieve roughly 30
tons of ozone season NOX emissions reductions on an annual
basis through the strategies of SCR and SNCR optimization and upgrade
of combustion control requirements at qualifying EGUs. In the letter,
NMED identified 236 tons of already established annual NOX
emissions reductions due to two compliance orders lodged in 2021 that
it claims had not been reflected in the EPA's 2016v3 emissions
platform, and an additional 77 tons of emissions reductions across 3
years from a consent decree with Matador Production Company.\114\
According to NMED, because these reductions are greater than the
reductions that would be achieved under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan,
there is no need to issue a FIP for New Mexico, since these other
measures have already eliminated a greater mass-based quantity of
emissions than the EPA found needed to eliminate significant
contribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ NMED's July 5, 2023 letter, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency acknowledges and applauds the efforts to enforce air
pollution control requirements and the reductions in ozone-precursor
emissions that are claimed to be achieved under these orders. However,
the information in this letter does not lead the EPA to a different
conclusion with respect to the approvability of New Mexico's interstate
transport SIP submission. In addition to the fact that the letter is
not a formal SIP submission, the EPA does not believe the information
contained in the letter (even if it were a SIP submission) is
sufficient to allow the EPA to conclude that New Mexico would satisfy
its obligations to eliminate significant contribution either at Step 2
or Step 3. The EPA welcomes the opportunity to further discuss with New
Mexico the content of a future SIP revision that would satisfy these
obligations.
Regarding the existence of a linkage at Step 2, although the letter
asserts these reductions are additional to those reflected in the
emissions inventories used in the 2016v3 modeling, this conclusion is
not clearly supported. The emissions inventories used in the modeling
reflected a specific methodology for calculating and projecting ozone-
precursor emissions from the oil and gas sector in New Mexico and
particularly in the Permian Basin. See Disapproval Action RTC at 117.
The reductions that may be achieved at the particular facilities under
compliance orders New Mexico cites do not necessarily establish that
those emissions projections, including growth factors, used in the
EPA's modeling for the oil and gas sector are unreliable. (In this
regard, the EPA does not view the information in the letter as
undercutting its determinations at Steps 1 and 2.)
Briefly, some additional concerns that the EPA has identified with
the approach suggested in New Mexico's letter include: (1) all new
NOX emissions reduction measures would need to be adopted
into the SIP; \115\ (2) any assessment of emissions reductions would
likely need to be in terms of the ozone season of May 1 through
September 30 rather than annual reductions and would need to be
established consistent with a relevant baseline date and compliance
date; \116\ and (3) the approach would need to account for the impact
of not placing additional NOX limitations on EGU sources in
determining the amount of NOX emissions that New Mexico's
SIP needs to reduce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ The EPA made this requirement clear in its SIP Disapproval
action. See 88 FR at 9343, 9376. In its letter, NMED has not
indicated its intent to incorporate these orders and the
commensurate NOX emissions reductions into their SIP.
\116\ As such, the information in NMED's letter is inadequate to
establish that these orders achieve an equivalent amount of
emissions reduction to eliminate significant contribution as the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan would in New Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency recognizes that states may replace a FIP with a SIP and
the emissions controls in that SIP may differ from those the EPA
selected in its FIP. See section VI.C. of this document. However, the
mere existence of the compliance orders identified by NMED does not
substitute for a Step 3 analysis and is insufficient in itself to
support a conclusion that New Mexico has resolved its good neighbor
obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Though there is not a single,
prescribed method for how a State may conduct a Step 3 analysis, the
EPA has consistently applied Step 3 of the good neighbor framework for
ozone through a far more comprehensive evaluation of potential
additional control technologies or measures, on industry-wide bases,
than what New Mexico provided in its submission. Identifying various
emissions control measures at specific units that have been enacted at
the State level, is not analytically sufficient. And as explained
above, the EPA has identified several additional concerns. First, as a
replacement for the emissions control strategy that the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan would implement at Step 4 in New Mexico, the letter is
insufficient to demonstrate equivalence. Second, as noted above, these
measures have not been included as a revision to New Mexico's SIP and
submitted for EPA's approval.
f. Conclusion
The EPA is proposing to find that the portion of NMED's July 27,
2021 and EHD's June 9, 2021, SIP submission addressing Prong 2 of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), interference with
[[Page 12691]]
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, does not meet the State's
interstate transport obligations, because it fails to contain the
necessary provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Additionally,
the EPA proposes to partially approve these submissions with respect to
Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision regarding ``significant
contribution to nonattainment.'' The EPA in its discretion has
considered the information in NMED's July 2023 letter but for the
reasons explained in section IV.B.2.d. of this document, finds this
information would not alter its conclusions as to New Mexico.
3. Tennessee
a. Evaluation of Information Provided by Tennessee Regarding Step 1
At Step 1 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, Tennessee
relied on the EPA's 2011-based modeling included in the March 2018
memorandum to identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors in 2023.
As described previously in section III.C. of this document, the EPA has
updated this modeling (2016v3) using the most current and technically
appropriate information and has used that information, along with its
violating-monitor receptor identification methodology, to determine the
final good neighbor obligations for 23 other states. To ensure parity
among states, the EPA proposes to rely on this air quality analysis to
identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the 2023 analytic
year.
b. Evaluation of Information Provided by Tennessee Regarding Step 2
At Step 2 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, Tennessee
relied on the 2011-based modeling released in the March 2018 memorandum
to identify upwind State linkages to nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in 2023. As described in section III.C. of this document, the
EPA has updated its air quality analytics (2016v3 modeling coupled with
monitoring data to inform identification of violating-monitor
receptors) to identify upwind State contributions to nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in 2023. In this proposal, to ensure parity among
states, the EPA relies on this set of analytics to identify upwind
contributions (``linkages'') to downwind air quality problems in the
2023 analytic year using a threshold of 1 percent of the NAAQS. See
section III.D.3. of this document for explanation of the use of 1
percent of the NAAQS. This set of analytical data establishes that
Tennessee is linked to violating-monitor receptors in 2023 in Dallas
County, TX. as shown in Table IV.B.3-1, Tennessee's maximum
contribution to a violating-monitor receptor is 0.86 ppb which is
greater than 1 percent of the ozone standard (i.e., 0.70 ppb).
Therefore, Tennessee is linked to a downwind air quality problem at
Steps 1 and 2. Because the entire technical basis for Tennessee's
submission is that the State is not linked at Step 2, but the state-of-
the-science analytics used to address all other states' obligations
establishes that this is not correct, the EPA proposes to partially
disapprove Tennessee's SIP submission based on the EPA's finding that
Tennesse contributes above the threshold to at least one maintenance-
only receptor in another state.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ To the extent the Tennessee submittal included information
regarding emissions controls that could be interpreted as relevant
to a Step 3 analysis, the EPA evaluates that information in Section
IV.C.3.d of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's air quality analytics indicate that Tennessee is not
linked to any model-projected nonattainment receptors above 1 percent
of the NAAQS. As a result, no further evaluation of the State's
emissions (i.e., multifactor analysis, including air quality and cost
considerations emissions analysis) are required with respect to Prong 1
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. This comports with the
State's conclusions with regards to Prong 1, and therefore, the EPA
proposes to partially approve Tennessee's SIP submission regarding
Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision regarding ``significant
contribution to nonattainment.'' \118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ Tennessee's largest impact on any modeled-projected
downwind nonattainment and maintenance-only receptor are 0.60 ppb
and 0.68 ppb, respectively. These values are less than 0.70 ppb (one
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee references a 1 ppb threshold in its submission, citing
the EPA's Significant Impact Level (SIL) Guidance as justification for
the use of a 1 ppb threshold. The EPA explained in the final SIP
Disapproval action that the SIL Guidance cannot be relied upon to
justify an alternative threshold at Step 2 of the interstate transport
framework for ozone. See 88 FR at 9372. The Agency is adopting that
same position in relation to Tennessee's attempted reliance.
c. Results of EPA's Step 1 and Step 2 Modeling and Findings for
Tennessee
As described in section III.B. of this document, the EPA performed
updated air quality modeling (2016v3) to project design values and
contributions for 2023. These data were examined to determine if
Tennessee contributes at or above the threshold of 1 percent of the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to any downwind nonattainment or
maintenance-only receptor. Based on the EPA's modeling results,
Tennessee is not linked to a model-identified nonattainment or
maintenance receptor in 2023 or 2026. However, as shown in Table
IV.B.3-1, the data \119\ indicates that in 2023, emissions from
Tennessee contribute greater than 1 percent of the standard to five
violating-monitor maintenance-only receptors in the Dallas-Fort Worth-
Arlington, Texas Core Based Statistical Area.120 121
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD, Appendix C, available in
Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668.
\120\ The EPA developed the violating-monitor approach in
response to comments on the 2016v2 modeling received on the proposed
Disapproval action and FIP. In this regard, EPA did not identify
violating-monitors in the contribution data associated with the
2016v1 and 2016v3 modeling.
\121\ As noted in section III.D.2. of this document, a
violating-monitor receptor is not projected to have a maximum
projected design value of 71 ppb or greater in 2023 based on the
EPA's 2016v3 modeling results. Therefore, the receptors identified
in Table IV.B.3-1 have both average and maximum projected design
values below 70 ppb.
Table IV.B.3-1--Tennessee Linkage Results Based on Violating-Monitor Maintenance-Only Receptors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021 Design 2022 Design 2021 4th high 2022 4th high Contribution
Receptor ID Location value (ppb) value (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
481130075................................. Dallas County, TX........... 71 71 73 72 0.86
481211032................................. Denton County, TX........... 76 77 85 77 0.77
484392003................................. Tarrant County, TX.......... 72 72 74 72 0.74
480850005................................. Collin County, TX........... 75 74 81 73 0.74
484390075................................. Tarrant County, TX.......... 75 76 76 77 0.70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12692]]
Therefore, based on the EPA's evaluation of the information in
Tennessee's SIP submission considering the modeling results for 2023
and 2026 using the 2016v3 emissions platform and monitoring data used
to inform the identification of violating-monitor receptors, the EPA
proposes to find that Tennesse is not linked to a nonattainment
receptor. However, the EPA finds that Tennessee is linked at Steps 1
and 2 to at least one maintenance-only receptor in another state.
d. Evaluation of Information Provided for Tennessee Regarding Step 3
To determine what, if any, emissions significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance and, thus, must be
eliminated under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), at Step 3 of the 4-
step interstate transport framework, a state's emissions are further
evaluated, in light of multiple factors, including air quality and cost
considerations. Tennessee did not conduct a Step 3 analysis in its SIP
submission because at the time, the EPA's modeling indicated the State
was not linked above 1 percent of the NAAQS to a projected downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor. However, based on the EPA's
updated air quality analytics, which the EPA has used to make final
determinations for all other states, the State is currently linked to
at least one downwind violating-monitor maintenance-only receptor. To
ensure consistency and equity across all states in addressing good
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the EPA is evaluating
the SIP submission in the context of this same set of air quality
analytics. Tennessee's SIP submission does not analyze total ozone
precursors that continue to be emitted from sources and other emissions
activity within the State, evaluate the emissions reduction potential
of any additional controls using cost or other metrics, nor evaluate
any resulting downwind air quality improvements that could result from
such controls. Instead, Tennessee's submission includes a list of
existing emissions control programs and measures in the State. However,
the EPA's modeling already takes account of such measures. Despite
these existing emissions controls, the State is linked above 1 percent
of the NAAQS to at least one downwind violating-monitor maintenance-
only receptor.
Based on this record, the EPA finds the State's conclusion that its
SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions interfering with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states to lack
justification. Thus, the EPA proposes to partially disapprove
Tennessee's SIP submission with respect to Prong 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), interference with maintenance of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
e. Conclusion
The EPA proposes to partially disapprove the State's SIP submission
with respect to Prong 2 regarding ``interference with maintenance'' of
the good neighbor provision. Additionally, the EPA proposes to
partially approve Tennessee's SIP submission with respect to Prong 1 of
the good neighbor provision regarding ``significant contribution to
nonattainment.''
C. Proposed SIP Action
The EPA is proposing to partially disapprove the portions of SIP
submissions from Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee pertaining to
interstate transport of air pollution that will interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states. Under CAA
section 110(c)(1), disapproval would establish a 2-year deadline for
the EPA to promulgate a FIP for Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee to
address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements pertaining to interference with maintenance of the 2015 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in other states, which the EPA proposes to do in this
action, unless the EPA approves a SIP submission that meets these
requirements. Disapproval of a good neighbor submission does not start
a mandatory sanctions clock. Additionally, the EPA is proposing to
partially approve the portions of SIP submissions from Arizona, New
Mexico, and Tennessee pertaining to interstate transport of air
pollution that will significantly contribute to nonattainment of the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states.
As discussed in greater detail in sections VI. and VII. of this
document, the EPA is proposing to determine based on application of the
EPA's 4-step interstate transport framework, that there are emissions
reductions that are required for Arizona, New Mexico, and Tennessee to
satisfy their good neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The
analysis on which the EPA proposes this conclusion for these three
states is the same, nationally consistent analytical framework on which
the Agency proposes FIP action for Kansas and Iowa in this proposed
action (see section V.A. of this document), as well as for the 23
states included in its March 15, 2023, Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
V. Other Clean Air Act Authorities for this Action
A. Correction of the EPA's Determination Regarding SIP Submissions From
Iowa and Kansas and Its Impact on the EPA's FIP Authority for Iowa and
Kansas
In 2022, the EPA approved infrastructure SIP submissions from Iowa
and Kansas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, which in part addressed the good
neighbor provision at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\122\ The EPA
concluded that, based on the 2016v2 modeling, which was the latest
modeling results available at the time the EPA took action, the largest
impact on any potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor
from each of these states was less than 1 percent of the NAAQS.\123\ As
a result, the EPA found that neither Iowa nor Kansas would
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
in any other state.\124\ Therefore, the EPA approved the portion of
each State's infrastructure SIP submission that addressed CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ 87 FR 22463 (April 15, 2022) (Iowa); 87 FR 19390 (April 4,
2022) (Kansas).
\123\ See ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document 2015
Ozone NAAQS Transport SIP Proposed Actions'', available in Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
\124\ Id. at 17. Based on the 2023 modeling from the Proposed
AQM TSD, Iowa was expected in 2023 to have a 0.64 ppb impact on a
potential nonattainment receptor in Kenosha County, Wisconsin (Site
ID 550590019) and a 0.58 ppb impact at a potential maintenance
receptor in Cook County, Illinois (Site ID 170310032). Kansas was
expected in 2023 to have a 0.49 ppb impact on a potential
nonattainment receptor in Kenosha County, Wisconsin (Site ID
550590019) and a 0.060 ppb impact at a potential maintenance
receptor in Cook County, Illinois (Site ID 170310001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to the release of the 2016v2-based modeling and EPA's
approval of Iowa's and Kansas' 2015 ozone NAAQS good neighbor SIP
submission, the EPA performed updated modeling in response to comments
received on other good neighbor proposals in 2022, as described in
section III.C. of this document. Additionally, as described in section
III.D.2. of this document, the EPA updated its definition of a
maintenance receptor in recognition of comments and other information
highlighting measured ozone levels continuing to exceed the 2015 ozone
NAAQS at many monitoring sites throughout the country. The approach
adopted in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan now takes into greater
consideration monitoring data to determine whether a violating
monitoring site will struggle to maintain
[[Page 12693]]
the NAAQS in the 2023 analytic year. The EPA used this new, unified set
of air quality analytics to inform its determinations of the
obligations of all other states. Iowa and Kansas have SIP approvals in
place that are inconsistent with that common set of information used
for other states, including those states that are linked to the same
receptors to which Iowa and Kansas are now shown to be linked in 2023.
As such, the approvals were in error under CAA section 110(k)(6).
Based on this updated air quality modeling and considering
contributions to violating-monitor receptors, both Iowa and Kansas are
now projected to contribute more than 1 percent of the NAAQS to
downwind receptors. Specifically, as shown in Table V.A-1, Iowa is
projected to contribute 0.90 ppb to a maintenance-only receptor in Cook
County, Illinois (Site ID 170310001) and 0.70 ppb to a maintenance-only
receptor in Kenosha, Wisconsin (Site ID 550590019) in the 2023 analytic
year. As shown in Table V.A-2, Iowa is also linked to three violating-
monitor receptors at locations in Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, in
the 2023 analytic year.
Table V.A-1--Iowa Linkage Results Based on the EPA Updated 2023 Modeling
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 Average 2023 Maximum Iowa
Receptor ID Location Nonattainment/maintenance design value design value contribution
(ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
170310001.................................. Cook, Illinois.............. Maintenance-Only............ 68.2 71.9 0.90
550590019.................................. Kenosha, Wisconsin.......... Maintenance-Only............ 70.8 71.7 0.70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD
Table V.A-2--Iowa 2023 Linkage Results Based on Violating-Monitor Maintenance-Only Receptors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iowa
Receptor ID Location 2021 Design 2022 Design 2021 4th high 2022 4th high contribution
value (ppb) value (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
260050003.................................. Allegan, Michigan.......... 75 75 78 73 1.13
170310032.................................. Cook, Illinois............. 75 75 77 72 0.79
550590025.................................. Kenosha, Wisconsin......... 72 73 72 71 0.71
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
Table V.A-3 shows that Kansas is projected to contribute 0.82 ppb
to the violating-monitor receptor in Allegan, MI (Site ID 260050003) in
the 2023 analytic year.
Table V.A-3--Kansas 2023 Linkage Results Based on Violating-Monitor Maintenance-Only Receptors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kansas
Receptor ID Location 2021 Design 2022 Design 2021 4th high 2022 4th high contribution
value (ppb) value (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
260050003.................................. Allegan, Michigan.......... 75 75 78 73 0.82
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Final Good Neighbor Plan AQM TSD.
Iowa and Kansas are not projected to be linked above 1 percent of
the NAAQS to receptors in the 2026 analytic year. The reasons for the
changes in linkages in the 2016v3 modeling for Iowa are driven by a
combination of factors. The EPA explained in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan that the 2016v3 modeling contains several changes to improve its
performance from the 2016v2 modeling, particularly in recognition of an
apparent under-prediction problem particularly in the Upper Midwest. 88
FR at 36697; see also 88 FR at 9344-45. The EPA made changes to better
incorporate the effects of biogenic emissions sources, lightning, and
international/boundary conditions on ozone levels, and observed an
improvement from a 19 percent underprediction to a 6.9 percent under
prediction in the Upper Midwest. Id. The EPA also updated its
anthropogenic-source emissions inventory data for all states, including
Iowa and Kansas. Id. At 36698. The change in linkages for Kansas is
attributable to the development of the violating-monitor receptor
methodology for identifying additional maintenance-only receptors,
coupled with updated calculations of contribution levels derived from
the updated 2016v3 modeling.
The same air quality monitoring data and modeling used to analyze
the analytic years 2023 and 2026 has been used in taking final action
to define the obligations of 23 states already covered in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan. As explained in section I.A. of this document, the
Agency finds it both reasonable--and necessary to ensuring consistency
and equity across all states--to use this same analytical information
to address the obligations of all states. These data are state-of-the-
science regarding air quality conditions and contribution levels in
2023 and 2026, reflecting improvements in the EPA's understanding from
the 2016v2 modeling and incorporating the input of many outside parties
through their public comments during the rulemaking process. Using
these data, methodological choices, and analytical findings, the EPA
has determined that Kansas and Iowa each contribute to at least one
maintenance receptor greater than 1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to find that its approval of each
State's 2015 ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission, with regard
only to the portion addressing Prong 2 of the good neighbor provision
[[Page 12694]]
at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), was in error.
Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA gives the Administrator authority,
without any further submission from a state, to revise certain prior
actions, including actions to approve SIP submissions, upon determining
that those actions were in error.\125\ The EPA's state-of-the-science
analysis used in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan demonstrates that the
EPA's prior conclusions that Iowa and Kansas will not interfere with
maintenance in any other State in the 2023 analytic year was incorrect,
which means that the EPA's approvals of Iowa's and Kansas' good
neighbor SIP submissions were in error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ See, e.g., 86 FR 23054, 23068 (error correcting prior
approval of Kentucky's transport SIP submission for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS to a disapproval and simultaneously promulgating FIP on the
basis of the Wisconsin and New York decisions remanding CSAPR Update
and vacating CSAPR Close-Out and new information establishing
Kentucky was linked to downwind receptors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency's use of error-correction authority in this instance is
well-rooted in the statute and case law and is consistent with the
EPA's longstanding practice and policy of addressing states' good
neighbor obligations using state-of-the-science air quality analysis in
a consistent manner across all states.
Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA provides the EPA with the authority to
make corrections to actions on CAA implementation plans that are
subsequently found to be in error. Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. EPA,
790 F.3d 934, 948 (9th Cir. 2015) (110(k)(6) is a ``broad provision''
enacted to provide the EPA with an avenue to correct errors). The key
provisions of CAA section 110(k)(6) are that the Administrator has the
authority to ``determine'' that the approval or promulgation of a plan
was ``in error,'' and when the Administrator so determines, he may then
revise the action ``as appropriate,'' in the same manner as the prior
action.\126\ Moreover, CAA section 110(k)(6) ``confers discretion on
the EPA to decide if and when it will invoke the statute to revise a
prior action.'' 790 F.3d at 948 (CAA section 110(k)(6) grants the ``EPA
the discretion to decide when to act pursuant to that provision'').
While CAA section 110(k)(6) provides the EPA with the authority to
correct its own ``error,'' nowhere does this provision or any other
provision in the CAA define what qualifies as ``error.'' Thus, the EPA
concludes that the term should be given its plain language, everyday
meaning, which includes all unintentional, incorrect, or wrong actions
or mistakes.\127\ Under CAA section 110(k)(6), the EPA must make an
error determination and provide ``the basis thereof.'' There is no
indication that this is a substantial burden for the Agency to meet. To
the contrary, the requirement is met if the EPA clearly articulates the
error and its basis. Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 790 F.3d at
948; see also 85 FR 73636, 73638.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ See 85 FR 73636, 73637 (November 19, 2020).
\127\ See 85 FR at 73637-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this action, the EPA proposes to determine that it made an error
in approving Kansas' and Iowa's good neighbor SIP submittals. The EPA
based its prior approvals on the conclusion that these states would not
contribute above 1 percent of the NAAQS to any receptors in 2023, using
modeling information that has since been updated to incorporate public
comment and better information, is no longer considered state-of-the-
science, and produces a different result for these states, one which is
inconsistent with the set of air quality analysis used to inform the
EPA's evaluation of all other states. See 88 FR 9344-45, 9349-50
(explaining updates to improve model performance and account for recent
monitored ozone levels in response to public comments). Had the EPA
known of this information regarding the 2023 analytic year reflected in
the 2016v3 modeling and the violating-monitor receptor identification
methodology at the time it issued those approvals, it would not have
approved Kansas or Iowa's submissions. Under the plain meaning of the
word ``error,'' those approvals were in error and are in need of
correction.
Application of the final air quality analysis and contribution
information from the Federal Good Neighbor Plan in this manner is
consistent with longstanding EPA practice and policy under the good
neighbor provision. The EPA explained in the Disapproval action its
view that use of updated information to inform its action on the states
included in the Disapproval action was not prejudicial, in part
because, had the Agency approved any of those states based on modeling
that had been superseded by more recent and reliable information, it
would exercise error correction authority under CAA section 110(k)(6)
as it had done in the past, to convert those approvals to disapprovals
(as it is now doing here). See 88 FR at 9364. The EPA explained that
this would be consistent with prior error-correction actions it has
taken or proposed under the good neighbor provision. See id. (citing 86
FR 23056, 23067-68 (April 30, 2021) (error correcting Kentucky's
approval to a disapproval and promulgating FIP addressing Kentucky's
outstanding 2008 ozone NAAQS good neighbor obligations); 87 FR 20036,
20041 (April 6, 2022) (proposing error correction for Delaware's 2015
ozone NAAQS SIP approval to a disapproval based on updated air quality
modeling)). Similarly, in the original CSAPR rulemaking, the EPA issued
error corrections under CAA section 110(k)(6) authority for 22 states
where the EPA had issued approvals of SIPs adopted under the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), following the D.C. Circuit's decision in North
Carolina that CAIR's ``emissions budgets were insufficiently related to
the statutory mandate'' of the good neighbor provision. See 76 FR
48208, 48220-22 (Aug. 8, 2011). The D.C. Circuit upheld this exercise
of error-correction authority in EME Homer City, 795 F.3d 118, 132-35
(D.C. Cir. 2015).
The 22 error corrections in the original CSAPR and for Kentucky in
the Revised CSAPR Update were prompted by judicial decisions that
invalidated the reasoning that the EPA had used to support the
approvals. In those circumstances, a change in the law occurring
subsequent to the time of the EPA's original action on the SIPs, and
which the EPA could not have been aware of at the time that it took
such action, justified the use of error-correction authority. Likewise,
a change in the EPA's understanding of the relevant facts, even if that
understanding could not have been known at the time of the EPA's
original action, may equally justify the exercise of error-correction
authority.\128\ The EPA does not read the statute to only authorize the
use of error correction authority under 110(k)(6) when a judicial
decision or other change in legal view or interpretation has been
brought to light. This would read into the statute a term that is not
there, namely, that the EPA can only exercise CAA section 110(k)(6)
authority when there is a ``legal'' error. As explained previously, the
statute does not say this. It only uses the term ``error''; that term
is not defined, and its plain meaning encompasses errors of law or
fact. In this case, while no intervening judicial decision or change in
legal
[[Page 12695]]
interpretation has prompted this proposed error correction, this is no
way diminishes the appropriate exercise of CAA section 110(k)(6) error
correction authority in this instance. The EPA approved Kansas's and
Iowa's SIPs based on a mistaken belief that they would not contribute
above the 1 percent threshold to receptors in 2023. The updated air
quality and contribution analysis that the EPA used to render final
determinations in the Disapproval action and Federal Good Neighbor Plan
as to all other states' interstate transport obligations for the 2015
ozone NAAQS now indicates these findings were in error. To align the
treatment of these states with all others, it is not only reasonable,
but necessary for consistency and equity, to correct these approvals to
disapprovals. To clarify, if Kansas and Iowa are not required to now
meet their interstate transport obligations based on this new
information, other upwind states as well as the downwind areas to which
they are linked could bear a greater burden to reduce air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ The court in EME Homer City noted that its holding was
limited to the circumstance where ``a federal court says that EPA
lacked statutory authority at the time to approve a SIP.'' 795 F.3d
at 135 n.12. However, this statement was in relation to its holding
that the EPA had properly invoked the good cause exception of the
Administrative Procedure Act to issue those error corrections
without public notice and comment. See id. The EPA does not read
this statement as a limitation on the exercise of error-correction
authority generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In making this proposed determination, the EPA observes that all
other states whose good neighbor SIP submissions had previously been
approved using older data are found in the 2023 and 2026 air quality
analysis used in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan to continue not to
contribute above 1 percent of the NAAQS at any receptors. Thus, there
remains no need to revisit those approvals, because the updated air
quality analysis does not indicate that they were in error. Similarly,
where the EPA's final analysis in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
indicated that, contrary to prior expectations, a State is not linked
above 1 percent of the NAAQS to any receptors, the EPA has taken action
to approve that State's submission. This is the case for Wyoming. See
88 FR 54998 (Aug. 14, 2023). In no case has the EPA issued a final
disapproval of a good neighbor SIP submittal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS,
only to find that State not linked in the 2016v3 modeling or pursuant
to its violating-monitor receptor identification methodology. Had this
circumstance arisen, consistent with the position adopted here, the EPA
fully expects it would have acted under CAA section 110(k)(6) to
correct such a disapproval to an approval.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ For the same reasons, this is not a circumstance in which
the error correction is based in any sense on a change in agency
policy. The use of error correction authority in this case is in
keeping with the EPA's previously stated policy and consistent with
its practices in evaluating good neighbor obligations. See 88 FR
9364.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the EPA affirms in general that it does not view all
modeling results as subject to obligatory (or even discretionary)
revision under error-correction authority, simply because later
information shows a modeling projection to deviate from subsequent
modeling or real-world information. Agencies such as the EPA,
regulating in a scientifically complex arena such as the CAA, must be
able to make and rely on modeling projections, and this reliance is
appropriate and lawful even if modeling projections later may be found
to deviate from real-world information. See EME Homer City, 795 F.3d at
135 (``We will not invalidate EPA's predictions solely because there
might be discrepancies between those predictions and the real
world.''); see also Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 318 (holding that the EPA
must implement the Act even in the face of uncertainty). However, the
distinction here is in the fact that, following the approval of Kansas'
and Iowa's SIPs, new modeling information (and other air quality
analysis) was developed that informed, on a nationally consistent
basis, the EPA's determinations regarding the good neighbor obligations
of all other states. The EPA finds that in this circumstance, error
correction under CAA section 110(k)(6) is warranted and appropriate.
In proposing these error corrections, the Agency has reviewed the
original submittals from Iowa and Kansas. The Agency finds no
information, analysis, or implementation of control measures in these
submittals that could warrant approval on an alternative basis. The EPA
finds that neither Kansas nor Iowa submitted an appropriate analysis of
receptor specific information that could justify the application of a
higher Step 2 screening threshold of 1 ppb. As explained in section
III.D.3. of this document, the Agency has concluded that it will not
conduct such an analysis for any states that failed to develop such an
analysis themselves, and further, the Agency has explained through both
its Disapproval action and Federal Good Neighbor Plan rulemakings that
it would not be wise policy and would frustrate the goals of
consistency and equity among states in addressing interstate ozone
pollution, to attempt to recognize alternative contribution thresholds
in various states. 88 FR at 9371-75. In addition, neither Kansas or
Iowa submitted an analysis of emissions control strategies or
alternative frameworks for analysis at Step 3 that could justify
approval of their submissions on that basis. Further, neither State
provided any enforceable emissions control measures in their
submissions.
Therefore, the EPA proposes to correct its error in approving
Iowa's and Kansas' good neighbor SIP submissions. This error correction
under CAA section 110(k)(6) would revise the approval of the portion of
Iowa's and Kansas' 2015 ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission that
addresses CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to a partial disapproval as to
Prong 2 and rescinds any statements that the portion of Iowa's and
Kansas' infrastructure SIP submission that addresses CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), Prong 2, satisfies the requirements of the good
neighbor provision. The EPA's approval of these SIP submissions as to
Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision is not proposed to be changed.
The EPA is not proposing to correct the elements of Iowa's and Kansas'
2015 ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission that do not address CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Under CAA section 110(c)(1), finalization of this partial
disapproval would establish a 2-year deadline for the EPA to promulgate
a FIP for Kansas and Iowa to address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
interstate transport requirements pertaining to significant
contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states, which the EPA proposes to do
in this action, unless the EPA approves a SIP submission that meets
these requirements. Disapproval of a good neighbor submission does not
start a mandatory sanctions clock.
As discussed in greater detail in sections VI. and VII. of this
document, the EPA is proposing to determine based on application of the
EPA's 4-step interstate transport framework, that there are emissions
reductions that are required for Iowa and Kansas to satisfy their good
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The analysis on which
the EPA proposes this conclusion for Iowa and Kansas is the same,
nationally consistent analytical framework on which the Agency proposes
FIP action for the other states in this proposed action, as well as for
the 23 states included in its March 15, 2023, Federal Good Neighbor
Plan.
B. Application of Rule in Indian Country and Necessary or Appropriate
Finding
In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA finalized its
determination that the rule is applicable in all areas of Indian
country (as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151) within the covered 23-state
geography of the final rule, as explained
[[Page 12696]]
in section III.C.2. of that action.\130\ Here in this action, the EPA
proposes to apply this determination to all areas of Indian country
within the covered geography of this proposed rule. Certain areas of
Indian country within the geography of the rule are or may be subject
to State implementation planning authority. For the other areas of
Indian country within that geography, none of the relevant tribes has
as yet sought eligibility to administer a Tribal plan to implement the
good neighbor provision.\131\ Consistent with its final determination
in section III.C.2. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA is
proposing to include all areas of Indian country within the covered
geography of this rule, notwithstanding whether those areas are
currently subject to a State's implementation planning authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ 88 FR at 36690-93.
\131\ Under 40 CFR 49.4(a), tribes are not subject to the
specific plan submittal and implementation deadlines for NAAQS-
related requirements, including deadlines for submittal of plans
addressing transport impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to areas of Indian country not currently subject to a
State's implementation planning authority--i.e., Indian reservation
lands and other areas of Indian country over which the EPA or a tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction--the EPA here proposes a
``necessary or appropriate'' finding that direct Federal implementation
of the rule's requirements is warranted under CAA section 301(d)(4) and
40 CFR 49.11(a) (the areas of Indian country subject to this finding
are referred to later as the CAA section 301(d) FIP areas). Indian
Tribes may, but are not required to, submit Tribal plans to implement
CAA requirements, including the good neighbor provision. Section 301(d)
of the CAA and 40 CFR part 49 authorize the Administrator to treat an
Indian Tribe in the same manner as a State (i.e., Treatment As State
(TAS)) for purposes of developing and implementing a Tribal plan that
addresses good neighbor obligations. See 40 CFR 49.3; see also ``Indian
Tribes: Air Quality Planning and Management,'' hereafter ``Tribal
Authority Rule'' (63 FR 7254, February 12, 1998). The EPA is authorized
to directly implement the good neighbor provision in the 301(d) FIP
areas when it finds, consistent with the authority of CAA section 301--
which the EPA has exercised in 40 CFR 49.11--that it is necessary or
appropriate to do so.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ See Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 562 F.3d 1116,
1125 (10th Cir. 2009) (stating that 40 CFR 49.11(a) ``provides the
EPA discretion to determine what rulemaking is necessary or
appropriate to protect air quality and requires the EPA to
promulgate such rulemaking''); Safe Air For Everyone v. U.S. Env't
Prot. Agency, No. 05-73383, 2006 WL 3697684, at *1 (9th Cir., Dec.
15, 2006) (``The statutes and regulations that enable EPA to
regulate air quality on Indian reservations provide EPA with broad
discretion in setting the content of such regulations.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes in this action to find that it is both necessary
and appropriate to regulate all new and existing EGU and non-EGU
sources meeting the applicability criteria set forth in this proposed
rule in the 301(d) FIP areas that are located within the geographic
scope of coverage of the rule. For purposes of this proposed finding,
the geographic scope of coverage of the rule means the areas of the
United States encompassed within the borders of the states of Arizona,
Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee.\133\ For EGU applicability
criteria, see section VII.A. of this document; for non-EGU
applicability criteria, see section VII.B. of this document. To the
EPA's knowledge, there are two existing EGU sources located within the
301(d) FIP areas: the South Point Energy Center located on the Fort
Mojave Reservation, and the Four Corners Power Plant on the Navajo
Reservation. These EGU sources are geographically located within the
borders of Arizona and New Mexico, respectively.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ With respect to any non-EGU sources located in the 301(d)
FIP areas, the geographic scope of coverage of this proposed rule
does not include those states for which the EPA proposes to find,
based on air quality modeling, that no further linkage exists by the
2026 analytic year at Steps 1 and 2. The only State in this rule
projected to be linked in 2026 is Arizona.
\134\ The EPA is currently not aware of any existing non-EGU
sources that are located within the 301(d) FIP areas within
Arizona's borders that meet the non-EGU applicability criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed finding is consistent with the EPA's prior good
neighbor rules, including the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. In prior
rulemakings under the good neighbor provision, the EPA has included all
areas of Indian country within the geographic scope of those FIPs, such
that any new or existing sources meeting the rules' applicability
criteria would be subject to the rule. In the CSAPR, the CSAPR Update,
and the Revised CSAPR Update, the scope of the emissions trading
programs established for EGUs extended to cover all areas of Indian
country located within the geographic boundaries of the covered states.
In these rules, at the time of their promulgation, no existing units
were located in the covered areas of Indian country; under the general
applicability criteria of the trading programs, however, any new
sources located in such areas would become subject to the programs.
Thus, the EPA established a separate allowance allocation that would be
available for any new units locating in any of the relevant areas of
Indian country. See, e.g., 76 FR at 48293 (describing the CSAPR
methodology of allowance allocation under the ``Indian country new unit
set-aside'' provisions); see also id. at 48217 (explaining the EPA's
source of authority for directly regulating in relevant areas of Indian
country as necessary or appropriate). Further, in any action in which
the EPA subsequently approved a State's SIP submission to partially or
wholly replace the provisions of a CSAPR FIP, the EPA has clearly
delineated that it will continue to administer the Indian country new
unit set aside for sources in any areas of Indian country
geographically located within a State's borders and not subject to that
State's CAA planning authority, and the State may not exercise
jurisdiction over any such sources. See, e.g., 82 FR 46674, 46677
(October 6, 2017) (approving Alabama's SIP submission establishing a
State CSAPR trading program for ozone season NOX, but
providing, ``The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction.'').
For this proposed rulemaking, the EPA proposes to take the same
approach with respect to regulating sources in the 301(d) FIP areas as
was finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA finds this
approach is necessary and appropriate for several reasons. First, as an
extension of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the purpose of this rule
is to address the interstate transport of ozone on a national scale.
Consistent with its findings regarding the broad upwind region covered
by the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA proposes to extend into the
geography of these five additional states a uniform level of emissions-
control stringency. (See section VI. of this document for a discussion
of the EPA's determination of control stringency for this proposal.)
Within this approach, consistency in rule requirements across all
jurisdictions is vital in ensuring the remedy for ozone transport is,
in the words of the Supreme Court, ``efficient and equitable,'' 572
U.S. 489, 519. In particular, as the Supreme Court found in EME Homer
City Generation, allocating responsibility through uniform levels of
control across the entire upwind geography is ``equitable'' because, by
imposing uniform cost thresholds on regulated States, the EPA's rule
subjects to stricter regulation
[[Page 12697]]
those States that have done relatively less in the past to control
their pollution. Upwind States that have not yet implemented pollution
controls of the same stringency as their neighbors will be stopped from
free riding on their neighbors' efforts to reduce pollution. They will
have to bring down their emissions by installing devices of the kind in
which neighboring States have already invested. Id.
In the context of addressing regional-scale ozone transport in this
proposal, a uniform level of stringency that extends to and includes
the 301(d) FIP areas geographically located within the boundaries of
the linked upwind states carries significant force. Failure to include
all such areas within the scope of the rule creates a significant risk
that these areas may be targeted for the siting of facilities emitting
ozone-precursor pollutants to avoid the regulatory costs that would be
imposed under this proposed rule in the surrounding areas of State
jurisdiction. Electricity generation or the production of other goods
and commodities may become more cost-competitive at any EGUs or non-
EGUs not subject to the rule but located in a geography where all
surrounding facilities in the same industrial category are subject to
the rule. For instance, the affected EGU sources located on the Fort
Mojave Reservation of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and the Navajo
Reservation of the Navajo Nation are both in areas covered by the
interconnected western electricity grid. The EGU source on the Fort
Mojave Reservation is owned by a large merchant power supplier and the
EGU source on the Navajo Reservation is jointly owned by entities that
supply electricity to customers in several states. It is both necessary
and appropriate, in the EPA's view, to avoid creating, via this
proposed rule, a structure of incentives that may cause generation or
production--and the associated NOX emissions--to shift into
the 301(d) FIP areas to escape regulation needed to eliminate
interstate transport under the good neighbor provision.
The EPA finds it is appropriate to propose direct Federal
implementation of the proposed rule's requirements in the 301(d) FIP
areas at this time rather than at a later date. Tribes generally have
the opportunity to seek TAS and to undertake Tribal implementation
plans under the CAA. To date, no tribe relevant to an existing EGU in
the 301(d) FIP areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (or for any other NAAQS)
has expressed an intent to do so for purposes of regulating interstate
transport of air pollution under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D). Nor has the
EPA heard such intentions from any other tribe within the geography of
this rule, and it would not be reasonable to expect tribes to undertake
that planning effort, particularly when no existing sources are
currently located on their lands. Further, the EPA is mindful that
under court precedent, the EPA and states generally bear an obligation
to fully implement any required emissions reductions to eliminate
significant contribution under the good neighbor provision as
expeditiously as practicable and in alignment with downwind areas'
attainment schedule under the Act. As discussed in section VII.A. of
this document, the EPA anticipates implementing certain required
emissions reductions by the 2025 ozone season, and, for Arizona,
additional required emissions reductions by the 2027 ozone season.
Absent this proposed Federal implementation plan in the 301(d) FIP
areas, NOX emissions from any existing or new EGU or non-EGU
sources located in, or locating in, the 301(d) FIP areas within the
covered geography of the rule would remain unregulated and could
potentially increase. This would be inconsistent with the EPA's overall
goal of aligning good neighbor obligations with the downwind areas'
attainment schedule and to achieve emissions reductions as
expeditiously as practicable.
Further, the EPA recognizes that Indian country, including the
301(d) FIP areas, is often home to communities with environmental
justice concerns, and these communities may bear a disproportionate
level of pollution burden as compared with other areas of the United
States. The EPA's draft Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year 2022-2026 \135\
includes an objective to promote environmental justice at the Federal,
Tribal, state, and local levels and states: ``Integration of
environmental justice principles into all EPA activities with Tribal
governments and in Indian country is designed to be flexible enough to
accommodate EPA's Tribal program activities and goals, while at the
same time meeting the Agency's environmental justice goals.'' By
including all areas of Indian country within the covered geography of
the rule, the EPA is advancing environmental justice, lowering
pollution burdens in such areas, and preventing the potential for
``pollution havens'' to form in such areas as a result of facilities
seeking to locate there to avoid the requirements that would otherwise
apply outside of such areas under this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/fy-2022-2026-epa-draft-strategic-plan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, to ensure timely alignment of all needed emissions
reductions with the larger timetable of this proposed rule, to ensure
equitable distribution of the upwind pollution reduction obligation
across all upwind jurisdictions, to avoid perverse economic incentives
to locate sources of ozone-precursor pollution in the 301(d) FIP areas,
and to deliver greater environmental justice, including protection for
Tribal communities in line with Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our
Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All,\136\ the EPA
proposes to find it both necessary and appropriate that all existing
and new EGU and non-EGU sources that are located in the 301(d) FIP
areas within the geographic boundaries of the covered states, and which
would be subject to this rule if located within areas subject to State
CAA planning authority, should be included in this rule. The EPA
proposes this finding under section 301(d)(4) of the Act and 40 CFR
49.11. Further, to avoid ``unreasonable delay'' in promulgating this
FIP, as required under Sec. 49.11, the EPA concludes it is appropriate
to make this proposed finding now, to align emissions reduction
obligations for any covered new or existing sources in the section
301(d) FIP areas with the larger schedule of reductions under this
proposed rule. Because all other covered EGU and non-EGU sources within
the geography of this proposed rule would be subject to emissions
reductions of uniform stringency beginning in the 2025 ozone season,
and as necessary to fully and expeditiously address good neighbor
obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, there is little benefit to be had
by not proposing to include the 301(d) FIP areas in this rule now and a
potentially significant downside to not doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ Executive Order 14096 (April 21, 2023): https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/26/2023-08955/revitalizing-our-nations-commitment-to-environmental-justice-for-all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA will continue to consult with the governments of the Fort
Mojave Indian Tribe of the Fort Mojave Reservation, the Navajo Nation
of the Navajo Reservation, and any other tribe wishing to continue
consultation, during the comment period for this proposal. The EPA
invites comment on this proposed finding.
[[Page 12698]]
VI. Quantifying Upwind-State NOX Emissions Reduction Potential To
Reduce Interstate Ozone Transport for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS
A. Summary of Multi-Factor Test
This section describes the EPA's methodology at Step 3 of the 4-
step interstate transport framework for identifying upwind emissions
that constitute ``significant'' contribution or interference with
maintenance for the five states identified in the previous sections.
The EPA proposes to apply the same analysis to these states that it
applied for 23 states in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.\137\ To
summarize this analysis: The EPA applies a multi-factor test at Step 3.
The multi-factor test considers cost, available emissions reductions,
downwind air quality impacts, and other factors (e.g., controls that
have been widely adopted by like sources in other upwind states and/or
in downwind areas with ozone attainment problems) to determine the
appropriate level of control stringency that would eliminate
significant contribution to downwind nonattainment or maintenance
receptors. The selection of a uniform level of NOX emissions
control stringency across all of the linked states, reflected by
representative cost per ton of emissions reduction figures for EGUs and
the identified units in non-EGU industries, were principal findings
from the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan. These findings serve to
apportion the reduction responsibility among collectively contributing
upwind states. The EPA proposes to apply these same findings to five
additional states. As explained in section I.A. of this document, these
states are being addressed in this separate rulemaking due to a
happenstance resulting from rulemaking procedures and the timing of
development of information that informed action on other states. As
such, these states are not substantively situated differently in a
meaningful or material way from any of the other states for which the
EPA has already rendered a final determination of the appropriate level
of emissions-control stringency to eliminate significant contribution
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Had the EPA originally included these five
states in its multifactor test considering emissions reduction
potential across all linked states for this 2015 ozone NAAQS, the
Agency would have made the same control stringency determination due to
the comparable air quality circumstances and cost-effective emissions
reduction opportunities across the linked upwind-state geography.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ See 88 FR at 36718.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA therefore proposes to extend these findings on a uniform
basis to these five additional states. This approach to quantifying
upwind State emission-reduction obligations using a uniform level of
control stringency was reviewed by the Supreme Court in EME Homer City
Generation, which held that using such an approach to apportion
emissions reduction responsibilities among upwind states that are
collectively responsible for downwind air quality impacts ``is an
efficient and equitable solution to the allocation problem the good
neighbor provision requires the Agency to address.'' 572 U.S. at 519.
In the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA's analysis focused
on NOX as the primary ozone-precursor pollutant of
concern.\138\ The EPA then conducted four analytical steps as part of
the Step 3 multifactor test to arrive at an appropriate level of
stringency that eliminated significant contribution and/or interference
with maintenance. These were: (1) identify levels of uniform
NOX control stringency; (2) evaluate potential
NOX emissions reductions associated with each identified
level of uniform control stringency; (3) assess air quality
improvements at downwind receptors for each level of uniform control
stringency; and (4) select a level of control stringency considering
the identified cost, available NOX emissions reductions, and
downwind air quality impacts, while also ensuring that emissions
reductions do not unnecessarily over-control upwind-state emissions
relative to the contribution threshold applied at Step 2 or the
resolution of downwind receptors at Step 1. The remainder of this
section summarizes the application of this analytical framework to the
EGU and non-EGU sources in Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and
Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ As described in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan (88 FR
36719) the EPA examined the results of the contribution modeling
performed for that rule to identify the portion of the ozone
contribution attributable to anthropogenic NOX emissions
versus VOC emissions from each linked upwind State to each downwind
receptor. From that analysis, the Agency concluded that the vast
majority of the downwind air quality areas addressed by the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan are primarily NOX-limited, rather than
VOC-limited. Therefore, the EPA found that regulation of
NOX emissions was necessary while regulation of VOCs as
an ozone precursor in upwind states was not necessary to eliminate
significant contribution or interference with maintenance in
downwind areas in that rule. Considering that many of the downwind
locations are the same in this rulemaking, and that the EPA is
relying on the same air quality modeling, the EPA affirms that the
conclusions about regulation of NOX emissions relative to
VOCs from the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan apply in this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For both EGUs and non-EGUs, section VI.B. of this document
describes the available NOX emissions controls that the EPA
evaluated for this proposed rule and their representative cost levels
(in 2016$). Section VI.C. of this document discusses the EPA's
application of that information to assess emissions reduction potential
of the identified control stringencies. Finally, section VI.D. of this
document describes the EPA's assessment of associated air quality
impacts and proposed determination of significant contribution. Section
VI.D. of this document also describes the analysis the Agency conducted
to evaluate if its selected control strategy would result in over-
control for any upwind state, that is, whether an upwind State could
have reduced its air quality contributions below the 1 percent of NAAQS
air quality contribution threshold at a lower level of emissions-
control stringency than identified in the GNP.
As in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA applies its multi-
factor test at Step 3 to EGUs and non-EGUs on consistent but parallel
tracks. Following the conclusions of the EGU and non-EGU multi-factor
tests, the identified reductions for EGUs and non-EGUs are combined and
collectively analyzed to assess their effects on downwind air quality
and whether the proposed rule achieves a full remedy to eliminate
``significant contribution'' while avoiding over-control.
As described in section III.D.4. of this document and described in
this section, the EPA proposes that it is reasonable and equitable to
apply the same nationally-determined level of uniform emissions-control
stringency already determined in the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan
for 23 states to these five additional states. The EPA is aware of no
state-specific circumstances as to any of these five states that would
warrant different treatment or analysis than has already been applied
on a nationwide basis in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
B. Summary of Control Stringency Levels
1. EGUs
The Federal Good Neighbor Plan analyzed five NOX
emissions control strategies at EGUs: (1) fully operating existing SCR,
including both optimizing NOX removal by existing
operational SCRs and turning on and optimizing existing idled SCRs; (2)
installing state-of-the-art NOX combustion controls; (3)
fully operating existing SNCRs,
[[Page 12699]]
including both optimizing NOX removal by existing
operational SNCRs and turning on and optimizing existing idled SNCRs;
(4) installing new SNCRs; and (5) installing new SCRs.
In prior good neighbor rules, the EPA typically evaluated the
potential for emissions reductions from generation shifting at the
representative cost for each mitigation technology. This is because
shifting generation to lower NOX emitting or zero-emitting
EGUs may occur in response to economic factors. As the cost of emitting
NOX increases, it becomes increasingly cost-effective for
units with lower NOX rates to increase generation, while
units with higher NOX rates reduce generation. Because the
cost of generation is unit-specific, this generation shifting occurs
incrementally on a continuum. However, for reasons described in the
preamble for the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA determined that it
was not appropriate to incorporate emissions reductions from generation
shifting.\139\ For the same reasons, the EPA does not quantify
emissions reductions from generation shifting for the states covered by
this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ 88 FR 36731.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is equitable and reasonable to continue to use the same cost,
performance, and timelines for EGU NOX mitigation strategies
that were determined for EGUs for the Federal Good Neighbor Plan \140\
for the five additional states, as described in section III.D.4. of
this document. The analysis of NOX emissions controls was
completed recently and there have been no meaningful changes in the
factors considered since that analysis was completed.\141\ Table
VI.B.1-1 summarizes the cost, performance, and availability dates based
on the implementation timelines for the EGU NOX mitigation
strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ 88 FR 36720-36732.
\141\ See the EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies Final
Rule TSD Addendum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the analysis in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and supported
by technical information provided in the EGU NOX Mitigation
Strategies Final Rule TSD and its Addendum included in the docket for
this rulemaking, the EPA finds that the timeframe for optimizing
existing SCR and SNCR controls is about 2 months or less, and the
timeframe for upgrading combustion controls is about 6 months.
Additionally, for the same reasons described in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan, the EPA proposes that the first season for installing
new SNCRs should be aligned with the first season of feasible
installation for SCRs, i.e., the 2027 ozone season.\142\ Finally, for
the same reasons that the EPA described in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, the EPA proposes that SCR installation at EGUs can occur over a
36-48 month period, taking into account the fleetwide nature of the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan (including this supplemental rulemaking to
expand the Plan's coverage to five additional states, which considers
emissions reductions commensurate with retrofitting SCR on only an
additional seven units in Arizona).\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ 88 FR 36726.
\143\ 88 FR 36727.
Table VI.B.1-1--Summary of EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies, Representative Costs, Timelines, and Applicability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative cost First ozone season available NOX emissions rate
Mitigation strategy (2016$) Implementation timeline for supplemental states Unit applicability (lb/MMBtu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fully Operating Existing SCR $1,600/ton......... <2 months............... 2025........................ Covered fossil- Coal steam: 0.08; O/
(optimizing operating and idled fired units with G Steam: 0.03;
SCR). SCR. Combustion
Turbine: 0.03;
Combined Cycle:
0.012.
Installing State-Of-The-Art $1,600/ton......... 6 to 8 months........... 2025........................ Covered coal steam 0.199.
Combustion Controls. units lacking
state-of-the-art
combustion
controls.
Fully Operating Existing SNCR $1,800/ton......... <2 months............... 2025........................ Covered fossil- Up to a 25%
(optimizing operating and idled fired units with reduction in
SNCR). SNCR. emissions rate if
SNCR idled.
Installing New SNCR.............. $6,700/ton......... 16 months............... 2027........................ Covered CFB units Up to a 50%
of any size and reduction in
other coal steam emissions rate for
units under 100 MW CFB units; up to a
lacking post- 25% reduction in
combustion NOX emissions rate for
controls \144\. other units.
Installing New SCR............... $11,000/ton (coal 36 to 48 months......... 2027 (with phase in over Covered coal steam 0.05 for coal steam
steam); $7,700 (O/ 2027 and 2028). units (except CFB) units; 0.03 for O/
G steam). great than 100 MW; G steam units.
O/G Steam units at
least 100 MW and
with at least 150
tons NOX emissions
on average for the
2019 to 2021 ozone
seasons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Non-EGUs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ No units in Arizona, the only State in this proposal
linked in 2026, meet this criterion, but the mitigation strategy is
included in the table for completeness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA developed an analytical
framework to facilitate decisions about which industries and emissions
unit types in the non-electric generating unit ``sector'' may have a
share of upwind states' significant contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states.
A February 28, 2022 memorandum documents the analytical framework that
the EPA used to initially identify, through a regional-scale,
multistate screening assessment (Screening Assessment), industries and
emissions unit types for which there appeared to be cost-effective
reductions having the greatest potential for air quality benefit in
downwind states.\145\ From this Screening Assessment, the EPA further
developed its proposed set of emissions control strategies for non-EGUs
that would fully eliminate significant contribution from the
[[Page 12700]]
upwind states.\146\ Following consideration of public comment, in the
final Federal Good Neighbor Plan the EPA finalized emissions control
requirements for certain non-EGU sources. The EPA prepared a memorandum
summarizing the emissions unit types, applicability criteria, emissions
limits, estimated number of emissions units captured by the
applicability criteria, and estimated emissions reductions and
costs.\147\ The EPA updated its technical analysis of non-EGU industry
sectors and responded to public comments.\148\ The final Federal Good
Neighbor Plan established a uniform set of emissions control
requirements for non-EGU sources in nine industries for each of the 20
states for which the EPA found continuing contribution at or above 1
percent of the NAAQS through the 2026 ozone season. See generally 88 FR
at 36817-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ The memorandum titled Screening Assessment of Potential
Emissions Reductions, Air Quality Impacts, and Costs from Non-EGU
Emissions Units for 2026 is available in the docket here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668-0150.
\146\ See Non-EGU Sectors Technical Support Document for the
Proposed Rule, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668-0145.
\147\ The memorandum titled Summary of Final Rule Applicability
Criteria and Emissions Limits for Non-EGU Emissions Units, Assumed
Control Technologies for Meeting the Final Emissions Limits, and
Estimated Emissions Units, Emissions Reductions, and Costs is
available in the docket here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668-0956.
\148\ See Non-EGU Sectors Technical Support Document for the
Final Rule, available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668-1110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with its EGU analysis at Step 3, the EPA finds that it is
equitable and reasonable to extend these same findings for the relevant
non-EGU sources in the State of Arizona, which is the only state
covered in this action for which the EPA continues to find a continuing
contribution at or above 1 percent of the NAAQS through the 2026 ozone
season. Several points that the EPA observed in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan bear emphasis in explaining why it is reasonable for
Arizona's sources to be subject to the same Step 3 analysis and non-EGU
control requirements as the other covered states. There is an equitable
concern that supports an approach by which direct competitors within
identified industries within the geography of linked upwind states are
held to the same level of emissions performance, as this avoids the
potential for emissions shifting or competitive disadvantages brought
on by assigning transport obligations to individual sources that are
not borne by their competitors in other linked upwind states. Thus,
this has informed how the EPA has consistently approached assessing
emissions control opportunities in prior ozone transport rulemakings,
and in particular, the analysis of emissions control opportunities on
an industry-wide basis. For example, in CSAPR, we focused on a single
industry, the power sector (or EGUs), because we found that in general,
across this industry, there were highly cost-effective emissions
control opportunities compared to other industries (based on our
assessment at that time). See 76 FR at 48249. Similarly, in the
NOX SIP Call, we also focused on assessing emissions-control
opportunities by industry (using NAICS-code industry classifications as
we do in this action), while recognizing that boilers are a unit type
that could have cost-effective emissions reductions across multiple
industries (as we again recognize in this action). See 63 FR at 57399.
The EPA explained in the NOX SIP Call that this approach
``assure[d] equity among the various source categories and the
industries they represent,'' id.
It was precisely this analytical framework that the Supreme Court
upheld in EME Homer City, noting the ``thorny causation problem'' of
interstate pollution transport, 572 U.S. at 514, the need to account
for ``the vagaries of the wind,'' id. at 497, and the complexity of
allocating responsibility among potentially large groups of states who
may each contribute to one another's air quality problems as well as to
multiple other states in varying degrees, id. 514-16.
Applying these principles here, the EPA views it as reasonable to
conclude that the Screening Assessment methodology continues to serve
as a reasonable and reliable method for distinguishing potentially
impactful industries from non-impactful industries in Arizona, just as
in the other states for purposes of defining good neighbor obligations
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in the context of a FIP. The Screening
Assessment identified nine out of approximately 40 industries for
further evaluation. That these were found to be the nine potentially
most impactful industries is not surprising, as each of these
industries typically involve large-scale fossil-fuel combustion as part
of their manufacturing or other processes, have historically had high
NOX emissions as a result, and are projected to continue to
have relatively high NOX emissions into the future. For
existing as well as any new sources that come to be located in Arizona,
it therefore makes sense to require these sources to meet the same
emissions control requirements that the same types of sources are
subject to in the covered states that have been found to have non-EGU
emissions that significantly contribute to other states' problems
attaining and maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA therefore proposes to apply the same Step 3 non-EGU
analytical framework for Arizona as applied in the covered states whose
sources are subject to these requirements. Table VI.B.2-1 summarizes
the industries, emissions unit types, and applicability requirements,
and Table VI.B.2-2 summarizes the industries, emissions unit types,
form of proposed emissions limits, and proposed emissions limits.
Table VI.B.2-1--Summary of Industries, Non-EGU Emissions Unit Types, and
Applicability Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions unit Applicability
Industry type requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Transportation of Reciprocating Nameplate rating of
Natural Gas. Internal >=1000 braking
Combustion horsepower (bhp).
Engines.
Cement and Concrete Product Kilns............ Directly emits or has
Manufacturing. the potential to
emit 100 tons per
year (tpy) or more
of NOX.
Iron and Steel Mills and Reheat Furnaces.. Directly emits or has
Ferroalloy Manufacturing. the potential to
emit 100 tpy or more
of NOX.
Glass and Glass Product Furnaces......... Directly emits or has
Manufacturing. the potential to
emit 100 tpy or more
of NOX.
Iron and Steel Mills and Boilers.......... Design capacity of
Ferroalloy Manufacturing; >=100 mmBtu/hr.
Metal Ore Mining; Basic
Chemical Manufacturing;
Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing; Pulp, Paper,
and Paperboard Mills.
[[Page 12701]]
Solid Waste Combustors and Combustors or Design capacity >=250
Incinerators. Incinerators. tons of waste/day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI.B.2-2--Summary of Non-EGU Industries, Emissions Unit Types, Form of Proposed Emissions Limits, and
Proposed Emissions Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form of proposed
Industry Emissions unit type emissions limits Proposed emissions limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Reciprocating Internal Grams per horsepower Four Stroke Rich Burn: 1.0
Gas. Combustion Engines. per hours (g/hp-hr). g/hp-hr; Four Stroke Lean
Burn: 1.5 g/hp-hr; Two
Stroke Lean Burn: 3.0 g/hp-
hr.
Cement and Concrete Product Kilns................. Pounds per ton (lbs/ Long Wet: 4.0 lb/ton; Long
Manufacturing. ton) of clinker. Dry: 3.0 lb/ton;
Preheater: 3.8 lb/ton;
Precalciner: 2.3 lb/ton;
Preheater/Precalciner: 2.8
lb/ton.
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Reheat Furnaces....... lbs/mmBtu \a\......... Test and set limit based on
Manufacturing. installation of Low-NOX
Burners.
Glass and Glass Product Furnaces.............. lbs/ton glass produced Container Glass Furnace:
Manufacturing. 4.0 lb/ton; Pressed/Blown
Glass Furnace: 4.0 lb/ton;
Fiberglass Furnace: 4.0 lb/
ton; Flat Glass Furnace: 7
lb/ton.
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Boilers............... lbs/mmBtu \a\......... Coal: 0.20 lb/mmBtu;
Manufacturing; Metal Ore Mining; Residual Oil: 0.20 lb/
Basic Chemical Manufacturing; mmBtu; Distillate Oil:
Petroleum and Coal Products 0.12 lb/mmBtu; Natural
Manufacturing; Pulp, Paper, and Gas: 0.08 lb/mmBtu.
Paperboard Mills.
Solid Waste Combustors and Combustors or ppmvd on a 24-hour 110 ppmvd on a 24-hour
Incinerators. Incinerators. averaging period and averaging period; 105
ppmvd on a 30-day ppmvd on a 30-day
averaging period. averaging period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Heat input limit.
C. Control Stringencies Represented by Cost Threshold ($ per Ton) and
Corresponding Emissions Reductions
1. EGUs
For EGUs, as discussed in section VI.A. of this document, the
multi-factor test considers increasing levels of uniform control
stringency in combination with considering total NOX
reduction potential and corresponding air quality improvements. The EPA
evaluated EGU NOX emissions controls that are widely
available (described previously in section VI.B.1. of this document),
that were assessed in previous rules to address ozone transport, and
that have been incorporated into State planning requirements to address
ozone nonattainment.
This analysis generated a selected representative cost threshold of
$11,000 per ton, associated with the retrofit of SCR on coal-fired EGUs
currently lacking that technology. 88 FR at 36745. All cost values
discussed in this section for EGUs are in 2016 dollars.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ The EPA used 2016 dollars in both the proposal and final
Revised CSAPR Update RIA, as well as the proposal and final Federal
Good Neighbor Plan RIA, to be consistent with those recent actions
we continued to use 2016 dollars as the dollar year for presenting
costs and benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following tables summarize the emissions reduction potentials
(in ozone season tons) from these emissions controls across the
affected jurisdictions. Table VI.C.1-1 focuses on near-term emissions
controls while Table VI.C.1-2 includes emissions controls with extended
implementation timeframes.
Table VI.C.1-1--EGU Ozone-Season Emissions and Reduction Potential (Tons)--Near Term *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction potential (tons) for varying levels
of technology inclusion
-----------------------------------------------
Baseline 2025 SCR SCR/SNCR
State OS NOX optimization + optimization +
SCR combustion combustion
optimization control control
upgrades upgrades
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona......................................... 8,479 84 153 284
Iowa............................................ 9,867 0 54 115
Kansas.......................................... 5,510 747 747 747
New Mexico...................................... 2,241 31 31 31
Tennessee....................................... 4,064 81 81 81
---------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12702]]
Total....................................... 30,162 943 1,066 1,257
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This analysis applies the same data sets, including relevant analytical year, as used in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan.
Table VI.C.1-2--EGU Ozone-Season Emissions and Reduction Potential (Tons)--Extended Implementation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction potential (tons) for varying levels of technology
inclusion
---------------------------------------------------------------
SCR/SNCR
State Baseline 2026 SCR SCR/SNCR optimization +
OS NOX SCR optimization + optimization + combustion
optimization combustion combustion control
control control upgrades + SCR/
upgrades upgrades SNCR retrofits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona......................... 6,098 84 153 284 2,085
Iowa............................ 9,773 0 0 60 5,747
Kansas.......................... 5,510 747 747 747 2,398
New Mexico...................... 2,038 31 31 31 361
Tennessee....................... 4,064 81 81 81 81
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 27,484 943 1,012 1,203 10,672
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This analysis applies the same data sets, including relevant analytical year, as used in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan.
2. Non-EGUs
As detailed in the memorandum titled, Summary of Final Rule
Applicability Criteria and Emissions Limits for Non-EGU Emissions
Units, Assumed Control Technologies for Meeting the Final Emissions
Limits, and Estimated Emissions Units, Emissions Reductions, and Costs
\150\ prepared for the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA uses the
2019 emissions inventory, the list of emissions units estimated to be
captured by the applicability criteria, the assumed control
technologies that would meet the emissions limits, and information on
control efficiencies and default cost/ton values from the control
measures database \151\ to estimate NOX emissions reductions
and costs for this proposal. The estimates using the 2019 inventory and
information from the control measures database identify proxies for
emissions units, as well as emissions reductions, and costs associated
with the assumed control technologies that would meet the emissions
limits. Emissions units subject to the proposed rule emissions limits
may differ from those estimated in this assessment, and the estimated
emissions reductions from and costs to meet the proposed rule emissions
limits may also differ from those estimated in this assessment. The
costs do not include monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, or testing
costs. As with the analysis for non-EGUs described in section VI.B.2.
of this document, this proposal simply applies the same analysis that
was conducted for these industries in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan,
considering data specific to the one State included in this action,
Arizona, that is proposed to be subject to the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan's non-EGU emissions control requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ Available in the docket here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668-0956.
\151\ More information on the control measures database can be
found here: https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-analysis-modelstools-air-pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table VI.C.2-1 of this document summarizes the industries,
estimated emissions unit types, and assumed control technologies that
meet the proposed emissions limits. Table VI.C.2-2 of this document
summarizes the industries, estimated emissions unit types, assumed
control technologies that meet the proposed emissions limits, and the
estimated number of control installations in Arizona. Table VI.C.2-3
summarizes the industries, estimated emissions unit types, assumed
control technologies that meet the proposed emissions limits, annual
costs (2016$), and ozone season emissions reductions. The average cost
per ton is $5,457 and is estimated using annual emissions. As the EPA
discussed in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the cost estimates for all
non-EGU industries were generally commensurate with the representative
uniform cost threshold of $11,000 per ton selected for EGUs. See 88 FR
at 36746-47.
[[Page 12703]]
Table VI.C.2-1--Summary of Non-EGU Industries, Emissions Unit Types,
Assumed Control Technologies That Meet Proposed Emissions Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed control
Emissions unit technologies that
Industry type meet proposed
emissions limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Transportation of Reciprocating Layered Combustion (2-
Natural Gas. Internal cycle Lean Burn)
Combustion \a\; SCR (4-cycle
Engines. Lean Burn); NSCR (4-
cycle Rich Burn).
Cement and Concrete Product Kilns............ SNCR.
Manufacturing.
Iron and Steel Mills and Reheat Furnaces.. LNB.
Ferroalloy Manufacturing.
Glass and Glass Product Furnaces......... LNB.
Manufacturing.
Iron and Steel Mills and Boilers.......... LNB + FGR (Natural
Ferroalloy Manufacturing. Gas, No Coal or
Oil).
Metal Ore Mining.............. ................. SCR (Any Coal, Any
Oil).
Basic Chemical Manufacturing..
Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing.
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Mills.
Solid Waste Combustors and Combustors or ANSCR \b\; LN\tm\ and
Incinerators. Incinerators. SNCR \b,c\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Some emissions units, or engines, in the 2019 inventory had Source
Classification Codes indicating that the units were reciprocating
without specifying the type of engine. The EPA assumed Non-Selective
Catalytic Reduction (NSCR) or layered combustion as the control for
these emissions units.
\b\ Municipal Waste Combustor Workgroup Report, prepared by the Ozone
Transport Commission Stationary and Area Sources Committee, Revised
April 2022.
\c\ Covanta has developed a proprietary low NOX combustion system
(LN\TM\) that involves staging of combustion air. The system is a
trademarked system and Covanta has received a patent for the
technology.
Table VI.C.2-2--Summary of Non-EGU Industries, Emissions Unit Types, Assumed Control Technologies That Meet
Proposed Emissions Limits, Estimated Number of Control Installations *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Assumed control number of
Industry/industries Emissions unit type technologies that meet existing units
proposed emissions limits per assumed
control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas.. Reciprocating Internal NSCR or Layered Combustion ..............
Combustion Engines. (Reciprocating).
Layered Combustion (2- 6
cycle Lean Burn).
SCR (4-cycle Lean Burn)... ..............
NSCR (4-cycle Rich Burn).. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table is limited to existing covered non-EGU unit types located in the State of Arizona. This does not
reflect a final determination that identified units, or any unidentified units meet or do not meet the
applicability criteria of the proposed rule.
Table VI.C.2-3--Summary of Non-EGU Industries, Emissions Unit Types, Assumed Control Technologies, Estimated
Total Annual Costs (2016$), Ozone Season NOX Emissions Reductions in 2026 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed control
technologies that Annual costs Ozone season
Industry/industries Emissions unit type meet proposed (2016$) emissions
emissions limits reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Reciprocating Layered Combustion (2- 4,309,893 329
Gas. Internal Combustion cycle Lean Burn).
Engine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table is limited to existing covered non-EGU unit types located in the State of Arizona. This does not
reflect a final determination that identified units, or any unidentified units meet or do not meet the
applicability criteria of the proposed rule.
D. Assessing Cost, EGU and Non-EGU NOX Reductions, and Air Quality
As described in section V.A. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
preamble, to determine the emissions that are significantly
contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance, the EPA
applied the multi-factor test to EGUs and non-EGUs on separate but
parallel tracks, considering for each the relationship of cost,
available emissions reductions, and downwind air quality impacts.
Specifically, for each sector, the EPA finalized a determination
regarding the fact that a uniform NOX control stringency was
appropriate and identified an appropriate level of uniform
NOX control stringency that would eliminate significant
contribution from each upwind state. Based on the air quality results
presented in section V.D. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan preamble,
the EPA found that the emissions control strategies that were
identified and evaluated in sections V.B. and V.C. of the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan preamble were cost-effective and delivered meaningful air
quality benefits through projected reductions in ozone levels across
the linked downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors in the
relevant analytic years 2023 and 2026. Further, the EPA found the
emissions control strategies in upwind states that would deliver these
benefits to be widely available and in use at many other similar EGU
and non-EGU facilities throughout the country, particularly in those
areas that have historically or now continue to struggle to attain and
[[Page 12704]]
maintain the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As described in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan, for this regional pollutant (i.e., ozone), for this
NAAQS (i.e., 2015 ozone), applying these emissions control strategies
on a uniform basis across all linked upwind states constituted an
efficient and equitable solution to the problem of allocating upwind-
state responsibility for the elimination of significant contribution.
See 88 FR at 36741.
The EPA finds that this solution should appropriately be extended
to apply to the five remaining states addressed in this rulemaking.
This uniform regional approach applying the levels of stringency
determined in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan is in keeping with the
uniform stringency approach that the EPA has applied across linked
upwind states in its ozone transport rulemakings beginning with the
NOX SIP Call. The EPA finds that this approach continues to
effectively address the ``thorny'' causation problem of interstate
pollution transport for regional-scale pollutants like ozone that
transport over large distances and are affected by the vagaries of
meteorology. EME Homer City, 572 U.S. at 514-16. It requires the most
impactful sources in each State that has been found to contribute to
ozone problems in other states to come up to minimum standards of
environmental performance based on demonstrated NOX
pollution-control technology. Id. at 519. As described in section V. of
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, when the effects of these emissions
reductions are assessed collectively across the hundreds of EGU and
non-EGU industrial sources that are subject to that rule, the
cumulative improvements in ozone levels at downwind receptors, while
they may vary to some extent, are both measurable and meaningful and
will assist downwind areas in attaining and maintaining the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. In this rule, we find that in these five additional states,
there are emissions reductions available at the costs and control
levels identified in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and that these
emissions reductions will likewise play a part in the meaningful air
quality improvements that will assist downwind areas in attaining and
maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS and ensure that linked upwind states
are held to resolving their fair share of the problem.
As discussed in the following sub-sections, the EPA has evaluated
the air quality effects of the different emissions control strategies
identified. The receptors show measurable improvement in air quality at
each incremental control stringency, up to and including the selected
emissions control strategies for EGUs and non-EGUs. These analytic
findings further confirm that the selected control stringency applied
in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan for 23 states is also the appropriate
control stringency to eliminate significant contribution for the 2015
ozone NAAQS for these additional five states. In this proposal, for the
states specifically included, the EPA also evaluates whether the
proposal results in over-control by evaluating if an upwind State is
linked solely to downwind air quality problems that could have been
resolved at a lower cost threshold, or if an upwind State could have
reduced its emissions below the 1 percent of NAAQS air quality
contribution threshold at a lower cost threshold than identified in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The Agency finds no overcontrol from this
proposal.
1. EGU and Non-EGU Cost and Emissions Reductions Assessment
As described in section VI.A. of this document, in Step 3, the
multifactor test considers cost and air quality factors. In addition,
in this proposed action the EPA continues to apply its longstanding
approach of considering uniform level of NOX control
stringency as foundational to the identification of emissions that
significantly contribute or interfere with maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS, in light of the regional-scale, meteorological-variability, and
long-range transport aspects of the ozone pollution problem. Thus, at a
foundational level, the EPA views it as fundamentally equitable,
efficient, and workable to extend the same emissions control strategies
found necessary to eliminate significant contribution from 23 states
already covered by the Federal Good Neighbor Plan to these five
additional states. See EME Homer, 572 U.S. at 524.
As described in section VI.A. of this document, in addition to
being cost-effective on a cost per ton basis, the EPA's determination
at Step 3 for both EGUs and non-EGUs is also informed by the overall
level of emissions reductions that will be achieved and the effect
those reductions are projected to have on air quality at the downwind
receptors. The EPA also explained in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
that, for EGUs, the EPA is also influenced by the fact that the
emissions control strategies for EGUs are generally well-demonstrated
to be achieved in practice at many existing units, as established
through our review of the controls currently installed on the fleet of
existing EGUs (see 88 FR at 36680). For non-EGUs, the EPA is also
influenced by the fact that the emissions control strategies for non-
EGUs are generally well demonstrated to be achieved in practice at many
existing units, as established through our review of consent decrees,
permits, Reasonably Available Control Technologies determinations, and
other data sources (see 88 FR at 36661).
2. Step 3 Air Quality Assessment Methodology
As described in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, to assess the air
quality impacts of the various control stringencies at downwind
receptors for the purposes of Step 3 in that rule, the EPA evaluated
changes resulting from the emissions reductions associated with the
identified emissions controls in each of the upwind states, as well as
assumed corresponding reductions of similar stringency in the downwind
State containing the receptor to which they are linked. By applying
these emissions reductions to the State containing the receptor, the
EPA assumed that the downwind State will implement (if it has not
already) an emissions control stringency for its sources that is
comparable to the upwind control stringency that was applied.
Consequently, the EPA accounted for the downwind State's ``fair share''
of the responsibility for resolving a nonattainment or maintenance
problem as a part of the over-control evaluation.\152\ As a result, the
EPA estimated the air quality design values (both average and maximum
design values) under both the base and control scenarios and, also,
evaluated the air quality contributions from each State to each
downwind monitor relative to the Step 2 contribution threshold. In this
supplemental rule, for the Step 3 and over-control evaluations, the EPA
applied the same framework using the data and tools from the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan (see the Good Neighbor Plan Ozone Transport Policy
Analysis Final Rule TSD for details). As described in the next section,
the EPA examined whether its findings in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
regarding stringency and overcontrol were robust to the updated
[[Page 12705]]
geographic coverage inclusive of the states identified in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ For EGUs, the analysis for the Connecticut receptors in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan shows no EGU reduction potential in
Connecticut from the emissions reduction measures identified given
that State's already low-emitting fleet; however, EGU reductions
were identified in Colorado and these reductions were included in
the over-control analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in section III.D.1. of this document, the EPA
continues to use 2023 and 2026 as the analytical years to inform its
evaluation of good neighbor obligations for these five additional
states, since these years were selected and used in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan as aligned with the 2024 and 2027 attainment dates and to
maintain consistency and ensure equity among all states. See 88 FR at
36749-50.
3. Results for Combined EGU and Non-EGU Air Quality Assessment
For 2023, the EPA examined the air quality effects of the emissions
reduction potential associated with each EGU emissions control
technology (summarized in section VI.C. of this document) in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan to arrive at an appropriate level of
stringency. The EPA uses the same framework for this supplemental
action, and similarly determined that (1) there are available emissions
reductions from these additional states in 2023, (2) they have a
beneficial impact on downwind air quality at identified receptors, and
(3) the updated geography, when incorporated into the multi-factor
test, supports the same stringency or over control findings in this
action as that of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA confirmed
that the emissions reductions from the five states, in isolation and in
combination with those from the states in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, reduced ozone levels at downwind receptors. For 2023, the
resulting average and maximum design values, adjusted relative to the
modeled design values can be found in the Ozone Transport Policy
Analysis Supplemental Proposed Rule TSD. The EPA confirmed that these
emissions reductions also do not result in the air quality
contributions for any of the supplemental states dropping below the
Step 2 air quality contribution threshold to all monitors to which the
State is linked (see the Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Supplemental
Proposed Rule TSD for details). While the average improvement in
downwind air quality improvement for these five states is expectedly
smaller than that for the 22-state region of the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan's EGU control program, so too are the expected emissions
reductions. Importantly, for individual State and receptor linkages,
downwind air quality improvement was found (see the Ozone Transport
Policy Analysis Supplemental Proposed Rule TSD). Moreover, health
benefits associated with just minor improvements in ozone
concentrations far exceed the cost of such mitigation measures.
Likewise, for 2026, the EPA examined the air quality effects of the
emissions reduction potential associated with the EGU and non-EGU
emissions control technologies (presented in sections IV.B. and VI.C.
of this document). Arizona was the only State among the five states
with more stringent measures applied in 2026 due to their continued
expected linkage. The EPA confirmed that these emissions reductions,
both individually and in combination with those from the states in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, had impacts on the air quality at downwind
receptors. For 2026, the resulting average and maximum design values,
adjusted relative to the modeled design values, can be found in the
Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Supplemental Proposed Rule TSD. The EPA
confirmed that these emissions reductions also do not result in the air
quality contributions from Arizona dropping below the Step 2 air
quality contribution threshold for all of its remaining receptors (see
the Ozone Transport Policy Analysis Supplement Proposal for
details).\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ The EPA's comprehensive Step 3 analysis for the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan specifically evaluated all states contributing
above the threshold to each individual monitor. This included each
of the five supplemental states (Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico,
and Tennessee) even though they were not regulated in that
rulemaking. These states had their emissions adjusted when their air
quality contributions were greater than or equal to 1 percent of the
NAAQS for each individual downwind monitor in that action. Thus,
they were already aligned with EPA's GNP Step 3 conclusion even
prior to their re-examination in this action. While the results
below highlight the collective impact of the updated geography,
consistent with the final GNP Step 3 analysis, the segmental air
quality benefits pertaining to the emissions reductions from these
five states can be found in the Ozone Transport Policy Analysis
Supplemental Proposed TSD and corresponding files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Conclusions
Considering the cost and air quality factors described above, with
respect to emissions reductions available in the near term, the EPA
proposes that the 2023 control stringency for EGUs identified for 22
states in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan constitutes the emissions
reductions that comprise each of these five states' interference with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states. For all affected
supplemental states, this control stringency reflects the optimization
of existing post-combustion controls and installation of state-of-the-
art NOX combustion controls, which are widely available at a
representative cost of $1,800 per ton. The EPA's evaluation also shows
that the effective emissions rate performance across affected EGUs
consistent with realization of these mitigation measures has
substantial air quality benefits and does not over-control upwind
states' emissions relative to either the downwind air quality problems
to which they are linked at Step 1 or the 1 percent contribution
threshold at Step 2. This strategy will fully resolve obligations for
the states of Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee.
Similarly, in the case of extended implementation control measures,
the EPA proposes that the 2026 control stringencies for EGUs and non-
EGUs finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan constitute the
emissions reductions that comprise the full elimination of Arizona's
interference with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in other states.
For Arizona, this control stringency reflects the installation of new
SCR post-combustion controls at coal steam sources greater than or
equal to 100 Megawatts (MW) and for a more limited portion of the oil/
gas steam fleet that had higher levels of emissions. As described in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, for EGUs, in addition to the
optimization of existing post-combustion controls and installation of
state-of-the-art NOX combustion controls these SCR retrofits
are appropriate for Arizona's linkages which persist and interfere with
downwind areas' ability to maintain the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the Serious
nonattainment date (i.e., through the 2026 ozone season) at $11,000 and
$7,700 per ton respectively. This control stringency also includes the
estimated emissions reductions from certain non-EGUs. These emissions
reductions for non-EGU sources are estimated to cost an average of
$5,457/ton, which is approximately half the representative uniform cost
threshold of $11,000 per ton selected for EGUs.
Furthermore, the EPA's evaluation shows that the effective
emissions rate performance across EGUs and non-EGUs consistent with the
full realization of these mitigation measures reduces ozone levels at
the receptors to which Arizona is linked and does not over-control
Arizona's emissions in 2026 relative to either the downwind air quality
problems to which it is linked at Step 1 or the 1 percent contribution
threshold at Step 2.
VII. Regulatory Requirements and Implementation
A. Regulatory Requirements for EGUs
To implement the required emissions reductions from EGUs in
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee, the EPA in this
rulemaking is proposing
[[Page 12706]]
to expand the geographic scope of the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 Trading Program (``Group 3 trading program'') to include
sources in these five states. Refer to section VI.B.1. of the preamble
of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan for a general discussion of the use
of allowance trading programs to achieve required emissions reductions
from the electric power sector and an overview of the Group 3 trading
program's enhancements to maintain the selected control stringency over
time and to improve emissions performance at individual units.
The EPA is not proposing to alter the Group 3 trading program
design elements finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA is
proposing to extend the program and its design elements to apply to
sources in these five additional states. These design elements include
the methodology for determining preset State emissions budgets for the
2023-2029 control periods, the methodology for determining dynamic
State emissions budgets for control periods in 2026 and onwards, the
annual recalibration of the Group 3 allowance bank, the unit-specific
backstop daily emissions rate, the unit-specific emissions limitations
contingent on assurance level exceedances, and monitoring and reporting
requirements. The EPA provided opportunity for comment on these design
elements in the public comment period following the proposal of the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan. Following feedback from many commenters
throughout the country, the EPA finalized the design elements with some
modifications, and section VI.B. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
preamble provides robust discussion of changes made in response to
comments. The EPA additionally carefully evaluated and comprehensively
responded to comments in the Response to Comment document included in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan docket. In general, the Agency considers
any issues associated with the application of the Group 3 Trading
Program in these five additional states to be within the scope of this
action. The EPA does not propose changes in the basic design elements
that were finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and is not aware
of any circumstances that would justify an alternative approach in
extending these provisions to these five additional states. Throughout
the remainder of this section, where the EPA has identified particular
issues that are clearly within the scope of this proposal, it has noted
its invitation to comment.
For the reasons explained in section VI.B.1. of this document, the
EPA proposes that only the EGU NOX strategies of fully
operating existing SCRs and SNCRs, and upgrading to state-of-the-art
combustion controls are possible for the 2025 ozone season. Based on an
assumption that this proposed action may be finalized sometime in the
summer of 2024, the first ozone season in which these strategies can be
implemented is the 2025 ozone season.
Regarding the strategy of retrofitting SCR controls, as the EPA
described in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA proposes that SCR
installation at EGUs can occur over a 36-48 month period, taking into
account the fleetwide nature of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
However, the Agency also recognizes that individual SCR installations
at EGUs are capable of being completed on shorter timeframes (as little
as 21 months), and this proposed action only analyzes SCR-retrofit
potential on EGUs for a single state, Arizona. Recognizing that this
proposal may be finalized sometime in the summer of 2024, the EPA
proposes that some amount of SCR-retrofit potential could be
accomplished by the start of the 2027 ozone season, which would be just
shy of a 3-year time period. The EPA also recognizes that the Serious
area attainment date falls on August 3, 2027, and that good neighbor
obligations should be addressed, if at all possible, no later than this
date. Taking all of these considerations into account, the EPA proposes
that SCR retrofits at EGUs in Arizona can be phased in over two ozone
seasons, 2027 and 2028. This generally aligns with the 36-48 month
estimate in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
Thus, the EPA is proposing that EGU sources located in Arizona,
Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee (and Indian country within the
states' borders) will participate in the Group 3 trading program
starting with the 2025 ozone season, which runs from May 1, 2025, to
September 30, 2025, and continuing in each ozone season after 2025.
Sources in Iowa, Kansas, and Tennessee (and Indian country within the
states' borders), which currently participate in the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program (``Group 2 trading
program''), would not be required to participate in the Group 2 trading
program with respect to emissions occurring after 2024.\154\ The EPA
invites comment on its proposed compliance start dates for these five
states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ The EPA would consider these EGUs' participation in the
Group 3 trading program as satisfying their states' good neighbor
obligations with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS (and for Tennessee,
the 1979 and 1997 ozone NAAQS as well) to the same extent that the
states' obligations are currently being met through the EGUs'
participation in the Group 2 trading program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remainder of this section discusses the potentially affected
units and the changes the EPA is proposing to synchronize the
integration and participation of sources in these five states into the
Group 3 trading program.
1. Applicability and Tentative Identification of Newly Affected Units
The Group 3 trading program applies to any stationary, fossil-fuel-
fired boiler or stationary, fossil fuel-fired combustion turbine
located in a covered State (or Indian country within the borders of a
covered state) and serving at any time on or after January 1, 2005, a
generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MW producing
electricity for sale, with exemptions for certain cogeneration units
and certain solid waste incineration units. The complete text of the
Group 3 trading program's applicability provisions (including the
exemptions) and the associated definitions can be found at 40 CFR
97.1004 and 40 CFR 97.1002, respectively.
The EPA is not proposing any changes to the Group 3 trading
program's applicability provisions in this rulemaking. The
applicability criteria for the Group 2 and Group 3 trading programs are
identical, with the result that any units in Iowa, Kansas, and
Tennessee (including units in Indian country within the borders of such
states) that are already subject to the Group 2 trading program would
also become subject to the Group 3 trading program. Further, the EPA
expects that any units in Arizona and New Mexico (including units in
Indian country within the borders of such states) that are already
subject to the Acid Rain Program under that program's applicability
criteria (see 40 CFR 72.6), would also meet the applicability criteria
for the Group 3 trading program.
Because the applicability criteria for the Acid Rain Program and
the Group 3 trading program are not identical, some units that are not
subject to the Acid Rain Program could meet the applicability criteria
for the Group 3 trading program. Using data reported to the U.S. Energy
Information Administration, the EPA has identified nine sources in
Arizona and New Mexico with a total of 23 units that that do not
currently report NOX emissions and operating data to the EPA
under the
[[Page 12707]]
Acid Rain Program but that appear to meet the applicability criteria
for the Group 3 trading program. The units are listed in Table VII.A.1-
1. For each of these units, the table shows the estimated historical
heat input and emissions data that the EPA proposes to use for the unit
when determining State emissions budgets if the unit is ultimately
treated as subject to the Group 3 trading program.
Table VII.A.1-1--Selected Potentially Affected Existing Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated ozone
Estimated ozone season NOX
State Facility ID Facility name Unit ID Unit type season heat emissions rate
input (mmBtu) (lb/mmBtu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona.......................... 141 Agua Fria.......... AF4................... CT.................... 15,443 0.346
Arizona.......................... 141 Agua Fria.......... AF5................... CT.................... 13,659 0.345
Arizona.......................... 141 Agua Fria.......... AF6................... CT.................... 13,659 0.375
Arizona.......................... 160 Apache............. GT3................... CT.................... 633,453 0.135
Arizona.......................... 147 Kyrene............. KY4................... CT.................... 2,317 0.106
Arizona.......................... 147 Kyrene............. KY5................... CT.................... 5,326 0.499
Arizona.......................... 147 Kyrene............. KY6................... CT.................... 5,326 0.322
Arizona.......................... 116 Ocotillo........... GT1................... CT.................... 1,752,453 0.016
Arizona.......................... 116 Ocotillo........... GT2................... CT.................... 1,752,453 0.006
Arizona.......................... 118 Saguaro............ GT1................... CT.................... 284,976 0.161
Arizona.......................... 118 Saguaro............ GT2................... CT.................... 284,976 0.049
Arizona.......................... 8068 Santan............. ST1................... CC.................... 1,037,153 0.037
Arizona.......................... 8068 Santan............. ST2................... CC.................... 1,037,153 0.067
Arizona.......................... 8068 Santan............. ST3................... CC.................... 1,037,153 0.052
Arizona.......................... 8068 Santan............. ST4................... CC.................... 1,037,153 0.036
Arizona.......................... 117 West Phoenix....... 1B.................... CC.................... 1,064,206 0.446
Arizona.......................... 117 West Phoenix....... 2B.................... CC.................... 1,064,206 0.444
Arizona.......................... 117 West Phoenix....... 3B.................... CC.................... 1,064,206 0.053
Arizona.......................... 117 West Phoenix....... GT1................... CT.................... 12,125 0.165
Arizona.......................... 117 West Phoenix....... GT2................... CT.................... 12,125 0.806
Arizona.......................... 120 Yucca.............. GT3................... CT.................... 587,371 0.140
Arizona.......................... 120 Yucca.............. GT4................... CT.................... 587,371 0.018
New Mexico....................... 2446 Maddox............. 2..................... CT.................... 62,445 0.309
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA requests comment on which existing units in Arizona and New
Mexico and Indian country within the borders of each State would or
would not meet the applicability criteria for the Group 3 trading
program. The EPA also requests comment, with supporting data, on
whether the estimated historical heat input and emissions data
identified for each unit in Table VII.A.1-1 are representative for the
unit.
2. Preset State Emissions Budgets
The Group 3 trading program as revised in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan provides for both preset and dynamic State emissions budgets.
Preset emissions budgets were determined in the rulemaking for all
states for the control periods in the years through 2029, and dynamic
emissions budgets are computed according to procedures set forth in 40
CFR 97.1010(a) for each control period starting with the 2026 control
period. In the control periods for the years from 2026 through 2029,
the emissions budget for each State will be the higher of the preset
emissions budget or the dynamic emissions budget computed for the State
for that control period. The variability limit for each State for each
control period is determined as a percentage of the State's emissions
budget for the control period in accordance with 40 CFR 97.1010(e), and
the State's assurance level for the control period is the sum of the
emissions budget and the variability limit. This same system for
determining State emissions budgets, variability limits, and assurance
levels would also apply to the five states that would be added to the
Group 3 trading program in this rulemaking.
In this proposal, the EPA is presenting the proposed preset State
ozone season NOX emissions budgets for covered EGUs in
Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee for the control
periods in 2025 through 2029. For all five states, starting with the
2025 control period, the State emissions budgets would reflect
emissions reductions achievable through optimization of installed
controls and installation of new state-of-the-art combustion controls.
In addition, for Arizona but not for the other four states, the
emissions reductions achievable through the installation and operation
of new SCR controls would be phased in starting with the preset and
dynamic budgets for the 2027 control periods and would be fully
reflected in the preset and dynamic budgets for 2028 and later control
periods. As noted previously, the EPA is not proposing changes in the
methodologies used to establish the preset or dynamic State emissions
budgets, the variability limits, or the assurance levels. The EPA is
not aware of any circumstances that would justify an alternative
approach in extending these provisions to these five additional states.
Rather, the EPA is requesting comment on the preset State ozone season
NOX emissions budgets calculated using these methodologies.
The preset State emissions budgets for control periods 2025-2029 are
presented in Table VII.A.2-1.
[[Page 12708]]
Table VII.A.2-1--Proposed Preset State Emissions Budgets, 2025-2029
[tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona......................... 8,195 5,814 4,913 3,949 3,949
Iowa............................ 9,752 9,713 9,713 9,713 9,077
Kansas.......................... 4,763 4,763 4,763 4,763 4,763
New Mexico...................... 2,211 2,008 2,008 2,008 2,008
Tennessee....................... 3,983 3,983 2,666 2,130 1,198
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Unit-Level Allowance Allocations
Under the Group 3 trading program, in advance of each control
period, a portion of each State's emissions budget for the control
period is reserved as a set-aside for potential allocation to new units
and the unreserved portion of the budget is then allocated among the
state's existing units. If there are existing units in areas of Indian
country within a State's borders not subject to the State's SIP
authority, allocations to those units are made through Indian country
existing unit set-asides.\155\ After each control period, the new unit
set-aside is allocated among any units qualifying for allocations
within the State's borders (including areas of Indian country) and any
remaining allowances are reallocated among the existing units. In
almost all cases, the allocations to set-asides, to existing units, and
to new units are made according to procedures laid out in the
regulations at 40 CFR 97.1010 through 97.1012. The exception is that
for control periods where the final State emissions budgets are
established in the related rulemaking--e.g., the 2025 control period--
the set-asides and allocations to existing units are also established
in the related rulemaking, using the same allocation procedure
applicable to later control periods. This same system for allocating
allowances from the Federal Good Neighbor Plan would also apply to the
five states that would be added to the Group 3 trading program in this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ The EPA is aware of four existing EGUs in Indian country
that would be covered under this rulemaking's proposed expansion of
the Group 3 trading program: South Point Units A and B in the Fort
Mojave Reservation within Arizona's borders, and Four Corners Units
4 and 5 in the Navajo Reservation within New Mexico's borders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the same methodology used to determine the percentages of
the budgets set aside for new units for other states in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA is proposing that the percentages of the
budgets set aside for new units for the five proposed additional states
would be the default of 5 percent for each of the states for all
control periods, except for Arizona for the control periods in 2025 and
2026, for which the percentage would be 11 percent. The EPA is also
presenting the proposed unit-level allocations to existing units in the
newly added states for the 2025 control period. The methodology and
procedures used to determine new unit set-aside percentages and unit-
level allocations are described in section VI.B.9. of the preamble to
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and in the ``Addendum to the Allowance
Allocation Under the Final Rule TSD for the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan'' TSD available in the docket for this action. The EPA's
allocations and allocation procedures apply for the 2025 control
period, and, by default, for subsequent control periods unless and
until a State or tribe provides state- or tribe-determined allowance
allocations under an approved SIP revision or Tribal implementation
plan.\156\ The EPA is taking comment only on the data inputs (e.g.,
corrections to the heat input value used for a particular unit) used in
applying the allowance allocation methodology for existing units and on
the resulting existing unit allocations proposed for the five proposed
additional states. The EPA is not proposing changes in the
methodologies used for allowance allocation and for establishing set-
asides determined in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA is not
aware of any circumstances that would justify an alternative approach
in extending these provisions to these five additional states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ The options for states to submit SIP revisions that would
replace the EPA's default allowance allocations are discussed in
sections VII.C.1., VII.C.2., and VII.C.3. of this document.
Similarly, for a covered area of Indian country not subject to a
State's CAA implementation planning authority, a tribe could elect
to work with the EPA under the Tribal Authority Rule to develop a
full or partial Tribal implementation plan under which the tribe
would determine allowance allocations that would replace the EPA's
default allocations for subsequent control periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Timing Adjustments for Certain Trading Program Provisions
In general, sources in the proposed additional states would face
the same compliance requirements as sources in states already covered
by the Group 3 trading program, but the EPA is proposing three
exceptions. The first exception concerns the timing with which elements
of the selected emissions control strategy are reflected in the State
emissions budgets. As discussed in section VI. of this document, the
EPA proposes to find that it is reasonable for the State emissions
budgets to reflect emissions reductions achievable from new combustion
controls starting in the 2025 control period and emissions reductions
achievable from new SCR controls phased in over the 2027-2028 control
periods. These proposed timing determinations, which are necessarily
later than the corresponding timing determinations for sources in
states already covered by the Group 3 trading program, would be
reflected in the preset and dynamic State emissions budgets for the
proposed additional states, as discussed in section VII.A.2. of this
document.
The second exception concerns the timing of the application of the
backstop daily NOX emissions rate provisions. For units in
the proposed additional states with existing SCR controls, the EPA
proposes that these provisions would apply starting in the 2026 control
period, which would be the units' second control period in the revised
Group 3 trading program. For units in Arizona without existing SCR
controls, the backstop rate provision would apply in the second control
period in which such controls are operated, but not later than the 2030
control period. These proposed schedules would reflect the same
principles used to determine the schedules for units with and without
existing SCR controls in the states already in the program. The
backstop rate provisions would not apply to units without existing SCR
controls in Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, or Tennessee (unless the units
choose to install such controls, in which case the backstop rate
provisions would apply starting in the second control period in which
such controls are operated) because the emissions control stringency
identified as appropriate for those states to address the states' good
neighbor obligations
[[Page 12709]]
does not include the installation of new SCR controls.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ As discussed in section X.C. of this document, the EPA is
proposing to make technical corrections to the backstop rate
provisions to ensure that the provisions would not inadvertently
apply to units without existing SCR controls in any State for which
the EPA's identified emissions control stringency does not include
the installation of new SCR controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The third exception concerns the timing of the application of the
maximum controlled baseline provisions which potentially cap allowance
allocations to individual units. For units in the proposed additional
states with existing SCR controls, the EPA proposes that these
provisions would apply starting in the 2025 control period, which would
be the units' first full control period in the revised Group 3 trading
program. For units in Arizona without existing SCR controls, the
maximum controlled baseline provisions would apply starting with the
2028 control period, which would be the first year in which the Arizona
State emissions budget would fully reflect the emissions reductions
achievable through the installation of new SCR controls. Again, these
proposed schedules would reflect the same principles used to determine
the schedules for units with and without existing SCR controls in the
states already in the program. The maximum controlled baseline
provisions would not apply to units without existing SCR controls in
Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, or Tennessee (unless the units choose to
install such controls) because the emissions control stringency
identified for those states as necessary to address the states' good
neighbor obligations does not include the installation of new SCR
controls.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ As discussed in section X.C. of this document, the EPA is
proposing to make technical corrections to the maximum controlled
baseline provisions to ensure that the provisions would not
inadvertently apply to units without existing SCR controls in any
State for which the EPA's identified emissions control stringency
does not include the installation of new SCR controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA requests comment on the proposed timing of the backstop
daily NOX emissions rate provisions and the maximum
controlled baseline provisions for sources in the proposed additional
states.
5. Creation of an Additional Group 3 Allowance Bank for the 2025
Control Period and Adjustment to Bank Recalibration for the 2025
Control Period
In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA created an initial bank
of 2023 Group 3 allowances available to sources in states newly added
to the Group 3 trading program by converting banked 2017-2022 Group 2
allowances. Similarly, in this rulemaking the EPA proposes to create an
initial bank of 2025 Group 3 allowances available to sources in the
proposed additional states by converting banked 2017-2024 Group 2
allowances. The target quantity of banked 2025 Group 3 allowances to be
created would be 21 percent of the sum of the 2025 State emissions
budgets of the newly added states. The allowances to be converted would
be all 2017-2024 Group 2 allowances held in the facility accounts of
sources in the newly added states as of the conversion date, which is
proposed to be 45 days after the effective date of a final rule in this
rulemaking. The conversion ratio would be the total quantity of 2017-
2024 Group 2 allowances being converted divided by the target quantity
of 2025 Group 3 allowances being created, but not less than 1.0.
The EPA's rationale for proposing to create an initial allowance
bank available to the sources in newly added states is generally the
same as the rationale for creating the similar bank under the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan. The limited differences between the two bank
creation processes are attributable to changes in circumstances and are
fully consistent with that rationale. First, because the emissions
reductions achievable through installation of combustion controls would
be reflected in the budgets for the newly added States' first control
period in the program, the allowance bank target would be based on the
first year's budgets rather than the second year's budgets. Second,
because the EPA expects that the effective date of a final rule will
not fall partway through an ozone season, there is no need in this
proposal to plan for prorating of the allowance bank target quantity.
Finally, because the sources in the newly added states would represent
a minority of the sources currently participating in the Group 2
trading program, this proposal would not convert Group 2 allowances
held in general accounts. For further discussion of the rationale for
the proposed bank creation, see section VI.B.12.b. of the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan preamble.
In addition to providing for the creation of an initial Group 3
allowance bank through the conversion of banked Group 2 allowances, the
EPA is also proposing an adjustment to the Group 3 trading program's
bank recalibration provisions for the 2025 control period to coordinate
those provisions with the proposed addition of the five additional
states. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to exclude the five newly
added states' 2025 budgets when calculating the bank ceiling target
used to determine whether any bank recalibration for the 2025 control
period will occur. The reason for this proposed change is that because
the initial bank creation process described in the preceding paragraphs
of this section (section VII.A.5. of this document) would separately
create a quantity of banked allowances for 2025 of up to 21 percent of
the newly added states' emissions budgets, to ensure that the overall
quantity of banked allowances available for use in the entire Group 3
trading program in the 2025 control period is no more than 21 percent
of the emissions budgets of all states covered by the program in 2025,
the bank ceiling target used in the bank recalibration process for
other banked allowances carried over into the 2025 control period in
the Group 3 trading program would need to be limited to 21 percent of
the budgets for the states other than the newly added states. For 2026
and later control periods, the bank ceiling target will be calculated
for all states in the Group 3 trading program using the State emissions
budgets for all covered states.
The EPA requests comment on the proposed creation of an initial
Group 3 allowance bank and the proposed adjustment to the Group 3
allowance bank recalibration for the 2025 control period.
B. Regulatory Requirements for Non-EGUs
As summarized in section II.B. of this document, the EPA finalized
requirements for emissions unit types in the following nine non-EGU
industries (industrial sources) in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan: RICE
in Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas; kilns in Cement and Cement
Product Manufacturing; reheat furnaces in Iron and Steel Mills and
Ferroalloy Manufacturing; furnaces in Glass and Glass Product
Manufacturing; boilers in Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy
Manufacturing, Metal Ore Mining, Basic Chemical Manufacturing,
Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing, and Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Mills; and combustors and incinerators in Solid Waste
Combustors and Incinerators. The EPA determined these are the most
impactful types of units in the relevant industries and that emissions
reductions are achievable with the control technologies identified in
sections VI.C.1. through VI.C.6. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and
further discussed in the Final Non-EGU Sectors TSD. The rationale
behind the applicability criteria, emissions limits, and additional
regulatory requirements for each industry can also be found in
[[Page 12710]]
sections VI.C.1. through VI.C.6. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The
emissions control requirements of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan for
non-EGU sources apply only during the ozone season (May through
September) each year.
In this document, the EPA proposes to extend these regulatory
requirements to affected units within the State of Arizona under the
same rationale provided in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. These
proposed FIP requirements for Arizona apply to both new and existing
emissions units in the State. This approach will ensure that all new
and existing emissions units in Arizona that meet the applicability
criteria will be subject to the same good neighbor requirements that
apply to new and existing units under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
for other covered states, in a manner that is wholly consistent with
the determination of significant contribution and interference with
maintenance at Step 3 (see section VI. of this document). Applying this
same uniform set of control requirements will also avoid creating,
inadvertently or intentionally, any incentives to shift production (and
therefore emissions) from an existing non-EGU source to a new non-EGU
source of the same type but lacking the relevant emissions control
requirements either within a linked State or in another linked state,
including the State of Arizona. The rationale behind the applicability
criteria, emissions limits, and additional regulatory requirements for
each industry can be found in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
The EPA does not propose to make any changes in the non-EGU
requirements that were finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan as
applicable to this one additional state. (The EPA does propose to make
certain corrections in the regulatory text as applicable in all states
that are subject to the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's non-EGU
provisions, as discussed in section X. of this document.) The EPA
proposes to extend these requirements to cover one additional state,
Arizona. The EPA is not aware of any circumstances that would justify
an alternative approach in extending these provisions to Arizona, which
were already finalized to apply in other covered states on a uniform
basis. However, the public is invited to comment on the proposed
application of these requirements in Arizona.
Similar to the EPA's adjustment in the compliance schedule for
EGUs, the EPA proposes that compliance with non-EGU requirements in
Arizona can be accomplished by the start of the 2027 ozone season. This
is 1 year later than the onset of these compliance obligations for
states that currently are subject to the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
This reflects findings in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan that all non-
EGU emissions control strategies can generally be implemented within a
3-year timeframe. Three years from when this proposal may be finalized
in 2024 roughly correlates to the 2027 ozone season. Respecting the
potential need for compliance extensions beyond this ozone season, this
proposal likewise includes the availability of compliance extensions
under 40 CFR 52.40(d) (as well as the availability of alternative
emissions limits under 40 CFR 52.40(e)). The dates associated with
filing applications under these provisions, as well as for making other
filings and demonstrations in association with compliance with the non-
EGU requirements, are proposed to be adjusted from the dates finalized
in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, and generally are proposed to align
with the 2027 ozone season. (The Agency anticipates and acknowledges
that the dates associated for compliance in the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan for other states where that rule is currently stayed pending
judicial review will likewise need to be reviewed and adjusted through
rulemaking action.) The Agency invites comment on its proposal that
compliance with emissions limits for covered non-EGU sources in Arizona
will be required beginning on May 1, 2027.
C. Submitting a SIP
Under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, a State may submit a SIP at
any time to address CAA requirements that are covered by a FIP, and if
the EPA approves the SIP submission it would replace the FIP, in whole
or in part, as appropriate. As discussed in this section, states may
opt for one of several alternatives that the EPA has provided to take
over all or portions of the FIP. However, as discussed in greater
detail further in this section of the document, the EPA also recognizes
that states retain the discretion to develop SIPs to replace a FIP
under approaches that differ from those the EPA finalizes.
The EPA has established certain specialized provisions for
replacing FIPs with SIPs within all the CSAPR trading programs,
including the use of so-called ``abbreviated SIPs'' and ``full SIPs,''
see 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4) and (5) and (b)(4), (5), (8), (9), (11), and
(12); 40 CFR 52.39(e), (f), (h), and (i). For a State to remove all FIP
provisions through an approved SIP revision, a State would need to
address all required reductions addressed by the FIP for that state,
i.e., reductions achieved through both EGU control and non-EGU control,
as applicable to that state. Additionally, tribes in Indian country
within the geographic scope of this rule may elect to work with the EPA
under the Tribal Authority Rule to replace the FIP for areas of Indian
country, in whole or in part, with a Tribal implementation plan or
reasonably severable portions of a Tribal implementation plan.
Consistent with the options provided to states included in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, under the FIPs for the five states in this
proposed rule whose EGUs are required to participate in the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program, the EPA proposes
to offer ``abbreviated'' and ``full'' SIP submission options for
states. An ``abbreviated SIP'' would allow a State to submit a SIP
revision that establishes state-determined allowance allocation
provisions replacing the default FIP allocation provisions but leaving
the remaining FIP provisions in place. A ``full SIP'' would allow a
State to adopt a trading program meeting certain requirements that
allow sources in the State to continue to use the EPA-administered
trading program through an approved SIP revision, rather than a FIP. In
addition, as under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and past CSAPR
rulemakings, the EPA proposes that newly added states have the option
to adopt state-determined allowance allocations for existing units for
the second control period under this rule--in this case, the 2026
control period--through streamlined SIP revisions. See 76 FR 48326-
48332 for additional discussion of full and abbreviated SIP options;
see also 40 CFR 52.38(b).
1. SIP Option To Modify Allocations for 2026 Under EGU Trading Program
As with the start of past CSAPR rulemakings, the EPA proposes the
option to allow a newly added State to use a similar process to submit
a SIP revision establishing allowance allocations for existing EGU
units in the State for the second control period of the new
requirements, i.e., in 2026, to replace the EPA-determined default
allocations. A State would have to submit a letter to the EPA by 15
days after the effective date of a final rule in this rulemaking
indicating its intent to submit a complete SIP revision by April 1,
2025. The SIP revision would provide, in an EPA-prescribed format, a
list of existing units within the State and their allocations for the
2026 control period. If a State does not submit a letter of intent to
submit a SIP revision, or if a State submits a timely
[[Page 12711]]
letter of intent but fails to submit a SIP revision, the EPA-determined
default allocations would be recorded by July 1, 2025. If a State
submits a timely letter of intent followed by a timely SIP revision
that is approved, the approved SIP revision allocations would be
recorded by October 1, 2025.
2. SIP Option To Modify Allocations for 2027 and Beyond Under EGU
Trading Program
For the 2027 control period and later, the EPA also proposes that
newly added states in the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
Trading Program could submit a SIP revision that makes changes only to
the allowance allocation provisions while relying on the FIP for the
remaining provisions of the EGU trading program.\159\ This abbreviated
SIP option would allow states to tailor the FIP to their individual
choices while maintaining the FIP-based structure of the trading
program. To ensure the availability of allowance allocations for units
in any Indian country within a State not covered by the State's CAA
implementation planning authority, if the State chose to replace the
EPA's default allocations with state-determined allocations, the EPA
would continue to administer any portion of each State emissions budget
reserved as a new unit set-aside or an Indian country existing unit
set-aside.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ Under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, states already
covered by the Group 3 trading program already have this option,
starting with the 2025 control period. See 40 CFR 52.38(b)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SIP submission deadline for this type of revision would be
December 1, 2025, if the State intends for the SIP revision to be
effective beginning with the 2027 control period. For states that
submit this type of SIP revision, the deadline to submit state-
determined allocations beginning with the 2027 control period under an
approved SIP would be June 1, 2026, and the deadline for the EPA to
record those allocations would be July 1, 2026. Similarly, a State
could submit a SIP revision beginning with the 2028 control period and
beyond by December 1, 2026, with State allocations for the 2028 control
period due June 1, 2027, and the EPA's recordation of the allocations
due by July 1, 2027.
3. SIP Option To Replace the Federal EGU Trading Program With an
Integrated State EGU Trading Program
For the 2027 control period and later, the EPA proposes that newly
added states in the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading
Program could choose to replace the Federal EGU trading program with an
integrated State EGU trading program through an approved SIP
revision.\160\ Under this full SIP option, a State could submit a SIP
revision that makes changes only to modify the EPA-determined default
allocations while adopting identical provisions for the remaining
portions of the EGU trading program. This SIP option would allow states
to replace these FIP provisions with state-based SIP provisions while
continuing participation in the larger regional trading program. As
with the abbreviated SIP option discussed previously, to ensure the
availability of allowance allocations for units in any Indian country
within a State not covered by the State's CAA implementation planning
authority, if the State chooses to replace the EPA's default
allocations with state-determined allocations, the EPA would continue
to administer any portion of each State emissions budget reserved as a
new unit set-aside or an Indian country existing unit set-aside.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ Under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, states already
covered by the Group 3 trading program already have this option,
starting with the 2025 control period. See 40 CFR 52.38(b)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deadlines for this type of SIP revision would be the same as the
deadlines for abbreviated SIP revisions. For the SIP-based program to
start with the 2027 control period, the SIP revision deadline would be
December 1, 2025, the deadline to submit state-determined allocations
for the 2027 control period under an approved SIP would be June 1,
2026, and the deadline for the EPA to record those allocations would be
July 1, 2026, and so on.
4. SIP Revisions That Do Not Use the Trading Program
States can submit SIP revisions to replace the FIP that achieve the
necessary EGU emissions reductions but do not use the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program. For a transport
SIP revision that does not use the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 Trading Program, the EPA would evaluate the transport SIP
revision based on the particular control strategies selected and
whether the strategies as a whole provide adequate and enforceable
provisions ensuring that the necessary emissions reductions (i.e.,
reductions equal to or greater than what the Group 3 trading program
will achieve) will be achieved. To address the applicable CAA
requirements, the SIP revision should include the following general
elements: (1) a comprehensive baseline 2023 statewide NOX
emissions inventory (which includes existing control requirements),
which should be consistent with the 2023 emissions inventory that the
EPA used to calculate the required State budget in this final proposed
rule (unless the State can explain the discrepancy); (2) a list and
description of control measures to satisfy the State emissions
reduction obligation and a demonstration showing when each measure
would be implemented to meet the 2025 and successive compliance
deadlines; (3) fully-adopted State rules providing for such
NOX controls during the ozone season; (4) for EGUs larger
than 25 MW, monitoring and reporting under 40 CFR part 75, and for
other units, monitoring and reporting procedures sufficient to
demonstrate that sources are complying with the SIP (see 40 CFR part
51, subpart K (``source surveillance'' requirements)); and (5) a
projected inventory demonstrating that State measures along with
Federal measures will achieve the necessary emissions reductions in
time to meet the 2025 and successive compliance deadlines (e.g.,
enforceable reductions commensurate with installation of SCR on coal-
fired EGUs by the 2027 ozone season). The SIPs must meet procedural
requirements under the Act, such as the requirements for public
hearing, be adopted by the appropriate State board or authority, and
establish by a practically enforceable regulation or permit(s) a
schedule and date for each affected source or source category to
achieve compliance. Once the State has made a SIP submission, the EPA
will evaluate the submission(s) for completeness before acting on the
SIP submission. EPA's criteria for determining completeness of a SIP
submission are codified at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
For further background information on considerations for replacing
a FIP with a SIP, see the discussion in the final CSAPR rulemaking (76
FR 48326).
5. SIP Revision Requirements for Non-EGU or Industrial Source Control
Requirements
Just as with the EGU requirements discussed in section VII.C.1.-4.
of this document, the EPA's finalization of this proposed interstate
ozone transport FIP for Arizona would in no way affect the ability of
the State to submit, for review and approval, a SIP that replaces the
requirements of the FIP with State requirements. To replace the non-EGU
portion of the FIP in a state, the State's SIP submission must provide
adequate provisions to prohibit NOX emissions that
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. The State SIP submission
must demonstrate that the
[[Page 12712]]
emissions reductions required by the SIP would continue to ensure that
significant contribution and interference with maintenance from that
State has been eliminated through permanent and enforceable measures.
The non-EGU requirements of the FIP would remain in place in each
covered State until a State's SIP submission has been approved by the
EPA to replace the FIP.
The most straightforward method for a State to submit a
presumptively approvable SIP revision to replace the non-EGU portion of
the FIPs for the State would be to provide a SIP revision that includes
emissions limits at an equivalent or greater level of stringency than
is specified for non-EGU sources meeting the applicability criteria and
associated compliance assurance provisions for each of the unit types
identified in section VI.C. of this document. However, states are also
free to develop alternative approaches to eliminating significant
contribution and interference with maintenance in other states, so long
as they are shown to be equivalent to the Federal plan they replace.
The Federal Good Neighbor Plan contains a more detailed discussion of
factors and considerations associated with replacing a good neighbor
FIP. See 88 FR at 36842-43.
D. Title V Permitting
As with the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, as well as other previous
good neighbor rules, like the CSAPR, the CSAPR Update, and the Revised
CSAPR Update, this proposed rule would not establish any permitting
requirements independent of those under Title V of the CAA and the
regulations implementing Title V, 40 CFR parts 70 and 71.\161\ All
major stationary sources of air pollution and certain other sources are
required to apply for title V operating permits that include emissions
limitations and other conditions as necessary to ensure compliance with
the applicable requirements of the CAA, including the requirements of
the applicable SIP. CAA sections 502(a) and 504(a), 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a)
and 7661c(a). The ``applicable requirements'' that must be addressed in
title V permits are defined in the title V regulations (40 CFR 70.2 and
71.2 (definition of ``applicable requirement'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ Part 70 addresses requirements for State title V programs,
and Part 71 governs the Federal title V program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA anticipates that, given the nature of the units subject to
this final rule, most if not all of the sources at which the units are
located are already subject to title V permitting requirements and
already possess a title V operating permit. For sources subject to
title V, the interstate transport requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
that are applicable to them under the FIPs proposed in this action
would be ``applicable requirements'' under title V and therefore must
be addressed in the title V permits. For example, EGU requirements
concerning designated representatives, monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping, the requirement to hold allowances covering emissions,
the compliance assurance provisions, and liability, and for non-EGUs,
the emissions limits and compliance requirements are, to the extent
relevant to each source, ``applicable requirements'' that must be
addressed in the permits.
Consistent with EPA's approach under the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan, the applicable requirements resulting from the FIPs generally
would have to be incorporated into affected sources' existing title V
permits either pursuant to the provisions for reopening for cause (40
CFR 70.7(f) and 71.7(f)), significant modifications (40 CFR 70.7(e)(4))
or the standard permit renewal provisions (40 CFR 70.7(c) and
71.7(c)).\162\ For sources newly subject to title V that would be
affected sources under the FIPs, the initial title V permit issued
pursuant to 40 CFR 70.7(a) would address the final FIP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ A permit is reopened for cause if any new applicable
requirements (such as those under a FIP) become applicable to an
affected source with a remaining permit term of 3 or more years. If
the remaining permit term is less than 3 years, such new applicable
requirements will be added to the permit during permit renewal. See
40 CFR 70.7(f)(1)(I) and 71.7(f)(1)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As was the case in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the new and
amended FIPs would impose no independent permitting requirements and
the title V permitting process would impose no additional burden on
sources already required to be permitted under title V. More detailed
title V permitting considerations for both EGUs and non-EGUs are
provided in section VI.D. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
VIII. Environmental Justice Considerations, Implications and Outreach
A. Environmental Justice
Demographic proximity analyses allow one to assess the potentially
vulnerable populations residing nearby affected facilities as an
indicator of exposure and the potential for adverse health impacts that
may occur at a local scale due to economic activity at a given location
including noise, odors, traffic, and emissions such as NO2,
covered under this EPA action and not modeled elsewhere in this EIA.
Although baseline proximity analyses are presented here for the
supplemental rule, several important caveats should be noted. In most
areas, emissions are not expected to increase from the rulemaking, so
most communities nearby affected facilities should experience decreases
in exposure from directly emitted pollutants. However, facilities may
vary widely in terms of the impacts on populations they already pose to
nearby populations. In addition, proximity to affected facilities does
not capture variation in baseline exposure across communities, nor does
it indicate that any exposures or impacts will occur and should not be
interpreted as a direct measure of exposure or impact. These points
limit the usefulness of proximity analyses when attempting to answer
question from EPA's Environmental Justice Technical Guidance.
Demographic proximity analyses were performed for two subsets of
facilities affected by the supplemental rule:
Electricity Generating Unit (EGU): Comparison of the
percentage of various populations (race/ethnicity, age, education,
poverty status, income, and linguistic isolation) living nearby covered
EGU sources to average national levels.
Non-EGU (non-electric generating units, or other
stationary emissions sources): Comparison of the percentage of various
populations (race/ethnicity, age, education, poverty status, income,
and linguistic isolation) living nearby covered non-EGU sources to
average national levels.
1. EGU Proximity Assessment
The current analysis identified all census blocks with centroids
within a 5 km, 10 km and 50 km radius of the latitude/longitude
location of each facility, and then linked each block with census-based
demographic data.\163\ The total population within a specific radius
around each facility is the sum of the population for every census
block within that specified radius, based on each block's population
provided by the decennial Census.\164\ Statistics on race,
[[Page 12713]]
ethnicity, age, education level, poverty status and linguistic
isolation were obtained from the Census' 2015-2019 American Community
Survey 5-year averages. These data are provided at the block group
level. For the purposes of this analysis, the demographic
characteristics of a given block group--that is, the percentage of
people in different races/ethnicities, the percentage in different age
groups (<18, 18-64, and >64), the percentage without a high school
diploma, the percentage that are below the poverty level, and the
percentage that are linguistically isolated--are presumed to also
describe each census block located within that block group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ Five km and 50 km radii are the default distances
currently used for proximity analyses. The 5 km distance is the
shortest distance that should be chosen to avoid excessive
demographic uncertainty and provides information on near-field
populations. The 50 km distance offers a sub-regional perspective.
The 10 km distance was added to this analysis as few to no people
were within 5 km of some affected facilities.
\164\ The location of the Census block centroid is used to
determine if the entire population of the Census block is assumed to
be within the specified radius. It is unknown how sensitive these
results may be to different methods of population estimation, such
as aerial apportionment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to facility-specific demographics, the demographic
composition of the total population within the specified radius (e.g.,
50 km) for all facilities as a whole was also computed (e.g., all EGUs
or all non-EGU facilities). In calculating the total populations, to
avoid double-counting, each census block population was only counted
once. That is, if a census block was located within the selected radius
(i.e., 50 km) for multiple facilities, the population of that census
block was only counted once in the total population. Finally, this
analysis compares the demographics at each specified radius (i.e., 5
km, 10 km, and 50 km) to the demographic composition of the nationwide
population.
For this action, a demographic analysis was conducted for nine EGU
facilities assumed to install additional controls at the 5 km, 10 km,
and 50 km radius distances (Table VIII.A.1-1). Approximately 7 million
people live within 50 km of these nine EGU facilities, representing
roughly 2 percent of the 328 million total population of the U.S.
Within 50km of EGU facilities, there is a higher Hispanic/Latino
population than the national average (26 percent versus 19 percent) and
a higher Native American population than the national average (1.9
percent versus 0.7 percent). Other demographics of the population
within 50km of the EGU facilities are similar to the national averages.
Approximately 166 thousand and 716 thousand people live within 5 km and
10 km of the EGU facilities, respectively. The demographic make-up of
the population within 5 km and 10 km of EGU facilities are very
similar. Within 5 km and 10 km of EGU facilities, there is a higher
Hispanic/Latino population than the national average (60 percent within
5 km and 53 percent within 10 km versus 19 percent nationwide) and a
higher Native American population than the national average (5.5
percent within 5 km and 3.5 percent within 10 km versus 0.7 percent
nationwide). The populations within 5 km and 10 km of EGU facilities
have a higher percentage of people under the age of 18 compared to the
national average (29 percent within both 5km and 10km versus 23 percent
nationwide). The percent of people living below the poverty level is
higher than the national average (24 percent within 5 km and 23 percent
within 10 km versus 13 percent nationwide). The percent of people over
the age of 25 without a high school diploma is higher than the national
average (18 percent within 5 km and 16 percent within 10 km versus 12
percent nationwide), and the percent of people living in linguistic
isolation is higher than the national average (12 percent within 5 km
and 10 percent within 10 km versus 5 percent nationwide).
Table VIII.A.1-1--Population Demographics for the Nine EGU Facilities Assumed To Install Additional Controls Due
to the Supplemental Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent (%) of population within each distance compared to the
national average \1\
Demographic group ---------------------------------------------------------------
National
5 km 10 km 50 km average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race/Ethnicity:
White....................................... 23 28 59 60
African American............................ 9 10 7 12
Native American............................. 5.5 3.5 1.9 0.7
Other and Multiracial....................... 3 5 6 8
Hispanic or Latino \2\...................... 60 53 26 19
Age:
0-17 Years Old.............................. 29 29 24 23
18-64 Years Old............................. 61 62 61 62
>=65 Years Old.............................. 9 9 15 16
Income:
People Living Below the Poverty Level....... 24 23 14 13
Education:
>= 25 Years Old Without a High School 18 16 8 12
Diploma....................................
Language:
People Living in Linguistic Isolation....... 12 10 5 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population........................ 165,712 716,296 6,742,898 328,016,242
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Demographic percentage is based on the Census' 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-year averages, at the
block group level, and include the 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Total population is based
on block level data from the 2010 Decennial Census.
\2\ To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic category
for these analyses. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this
analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also identified as in the Census.
2. Non-EGU Proximity Assessment
For this action, a demographic analysis was also conducted for two
non-EGU facilities assumed to install additional controls at the 5 km,
10 km, and 50 km radius distances (TableVIII.A.2-1). Approximately 218
thousand people live within 50 km of these two non-EGU facilities,
representing roughly 0.07 percent of the 328 million total population
of the U.S. Within 50km of the two non-EGU facilities, there is a
higher White population than the national average (72 percent versus 60
percent), and there is a higher Native American population than the
national average (3.8 percent
[[Page 12714]]
versus 0.7 percent). There is also a higher population over the age of
65 than the national average (24 percent versus 16 percent).
Approximately 200 and 3,000 people live within 5 km and 10 km of the
non-EGU facilities, respectively. The demographic make-up of the
population within 5 km and 10 km of non-EGU facilities are similar.
Within 5 km and 10 km of non-EGU facilities, there is a higher White
population than the national average (87 percent within 5km and 88
percent within 10 km versus 60 percent nationwide) and there is a
higher Native American population than the national average (2.2
percent within 5 km and 1.0 percent within 10 km versus 0.7 percent
nationwide). Concerning the age distribution within 5 and 10km of the
two non-EGU facilities, the percent of people aged 65 or older is
higher than the national average (31 percent within 5 km and 36 percent
within 10 km versus 16 percent nationwide). Additionally, the percent
of people living below the poverty level within 5 km and 10 km of the
non-EGU facilities is higher than the national average (18 percent
within 5 km and 17 percent within 10 km versus 13 percent nationwide).
Table VIII.A.2-1--Population Demographics for the Two Non-EGU Facilities Assumed To Install Additional Controls
Due to the Supplemental Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent (%) of population within each distance compared to the
national average \1\
Demographic group ---------------------------------------------------------------
National
5 km 10 km 50 km average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race/Ethnicity:
White....................................... 87 88 72 60
African American............................ 0 0 1 12
Native American............................. 2.2 1.0 3.8 0.7
Other and Multiracial....................... 4 4 5 8
Hispanic or Latino \2\...................... 7 7 19 19
Age:
0-17 Years Old.............................. 5 6 17 23
18-64 Years Old............................. 65 58 59 62
>=65 Years Old.............................. 31 36 24 16
Income:
People Living Below the Poverty Level....... 18 17 14 13
Education:
>=25 Years Old Without a High School Diploma 7 8 8 12
Language:
People Living in Linguistic Isolation:...... 0 0 2 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population........................ 204 3,193 218,256 328,016,242
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Demographic percentage is based on the Census' 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-year averages, at the
block group level, and include the 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Total population is based
on block level data from the 2010 Decennial Census.
\2\ To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic category
for these analyses. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this
analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also identified as in the Census.
For additional information on the EGU or non-EGU proximity
analyses, see section VII.3. of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan as well
as the memorandum Analysis of Demographic Factors For Populations
Living Near EGU and Non-EGU Facilities, in the rulemaking docket.
B. Outreach
Prior to this proposal and prior to proposal of the EPA's Federal
Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA initiated a public outreach effort to
gather input from stakeholder groups likely to be interested in this
action. Specifically, the EPA hosted an environmental justice webinar
on October 26, 2021, to share information about the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan and solicit feedback about potential environmental
justice considerations. The webinar was attended by over 180
individuals representing State governments, federally recognized
tribes, environmental NGOs, higher education institutions, industry,
and the EPA.\165\ Participants were invited to comment during the
webinar or provide written comments to a pre-regulatory docket. The
webinar was recorded and distributed to attendees after the event. The
key issues raised by interested parties is summarized in section
VIII.C. of the EPA's proposed Good Neighbor Plan Rulemaking, and the
EPA's response to these comments regarding environmental justice
considerations are available in section 6 of the Response To Comments
document for the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.166 167
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ This does not constitute the EPA's Tribal consultation
under Executive Order 13175, which is described in section XI.F. of
this document.
\166\ 87 FR 20036 at 20153.
\167\ ``Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards Response to Public Comments
on Proposed Rule'' at 837. Available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0668-1127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IX. Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Proposed Rule
In the EIA for this action, the EPA estimated the health and
climate benefits, compliance costs, and emissions changes that may
result from the proposed rule for the analysis period 2025 to 2044. The
estimated health and climate benefits and compliance costs are
presented in detail in the EIA. The EPA notes that for EGUs the
estimated benefits and compliance costs are directly associated with
fully operating existing SCRs during ozone season; fully operating
existing SNCRs during ozone season; installing state-of-the-art
combustion controls; imposing a backstop emissions rate on certain
units that lack SCR controls; and installing SCR and SNCR post-
combustion controls. The EPA also notes that for non-EGUs the estimated
health benefits and compliance costs are directly associated with
installing controls to meet the NOX emissions requirements
[[Page 12715]]
presented in section I.B. of this document.
For EGUs, the EPA analyzed this action's emissions budgets using
uniform control stringency represented by $1,800 per ton of
NOX (2016$) in 2025 and $11,000 per ton of NOX
(2016$) in 2027. For non-EGUs, the EPA developed an analytical
framework to determine which industries and emissions unit types to
include in a proposed Transport FIP for the 2015 ozone NAAQS transport
obligations. A February 28, 2022, memorandum, titled ``Screening
Assessment of Potential Emissions Reductions, Air Quality Impacts, and
Costs from Non-EGU Emissions Units for 2026,'' documents the analytical
framework used to identify industries and emissions unit types included
in the proposed FIP.
Table IX-1 provides the projected 2025 through 2030, 2035, 2040,
and 2044 EGU NOX ozone season emissions reductions for the
proposed rule. For additional information on emissions changes, see
Table 3-7 and Table 3-8 in the EIA.
Table IX-1--EGU Ozone Season NOX Emissions and Emissions Changes (Tons) for the Baseline Run and Proposed Rule
From 2025-2044
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total emissions
Ozone season NOX (tons) -------------------------------- Change from
Baseline Proposal baseline run
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025:
5 States.................................................... 23,701 22,243 -1,458
Other States................................................ 234,186 234,186 0
Nationwide.................................................. 257,887 256,428 -1,459
2026:
5 States.................................................... 23,701 22,243 -1,458
Other States................................................ 234,186 234,186 0
Nationwide.................................................. 257,887 256,428 -1,459
2027:
5 States.................................................... 18,270 17,012 -1,258
Other States................................................ 189,571 189,583 12
Nationwide.................................................. 207,840 206,595 -1,245
2028:
5 States.................................................... 18,270 17,012 -1,258
Other States................................................ 189,571 189,583 12
Nationwide.................................................. 207,840 206,595 -1,245
2029:
5 States.................................................... 18,270 17,012 -1,258
Other States................................................ 189,571 189,583 12
Nationwide.................................................. 207,840 206,595 -1,245
2030:
5 States.................................................... 16,184 15,427 -756
Other States................................................ 150,909 150,910 0
Nationwide.................................................. 167,093 166,337 -756
2035:
5 States.................................................... 5,967 5,453 -513
Other States................................................ 94,061 94,053 -8
Nationwide.................................................. 100,028 99,506 -521
2040:
5 States.................................................... 5,623 4,901 -722
Other States................................................ 77,971 78,010 39
Nationwide.................................................. 83,594 82,910 -683
2044:
5 States.................................................... 5,271 4,549 -722
Other States................................................ 71,506 71,506 0
Nationwide.................................................. 76,778 76,055 -722
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The 5 States include Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee. The Other States include the
remaining states not covered by the proposal in the contiguous United States. Nationwide is the total of the 5
States and the Other States.
Table IX-2 provides a summary of the ozone season NOX
emissions reductions and costs for non-EGUs in Arizona starting in
2028. We estimated the emissions reductions and costs for 2026 and
assume compliance by 2028. The analysis in the EIA assumes that the
estimated reductions in 2028 will be the same in later years.
Table IX-2--Summary of Non-EGU Industries, Emissions Unit Types, Assumed Control Technologies, Estimated Total
Annual Costs (2016$), Ozone Season NOX Emissions Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed control Ozone season
technologies that Annual costs emissions
Industry/Industries Emissions unit type meet proposed (million reductions
emissions limits 2016$) (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Transportation of Natural Reciprocating Layered Combustion (2- 4.3 329
Gas. Internal Combustion cycle Lean Burn).
Engine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12716]]
For EGUs, the EPA analyzed ozone season NOX emissions
reductions and the associated costs to the power sector using IPM and
its underlying data and inputs. For non-EGUs, the EPA prepared an
assessment summarized in the memorandum titled Non-EGU Applicability
Requirements and Estimated Emissions Reductions and Costs_Proposed
Supplemental, and the memorandum includes estimated emissions
reductions for the proposed rule.
Table IX-3 reflects the estimates of emissions reductions and the
changes in the cost of supplying electricity for the proposed rule for
EGUs and estimates of complying with the emissions requirements for
non-EGUs. The costs presented in Table IX-3 do not include monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting costs.
Table IX-3--Total Annual Estimated NOX Emissions Reductions (Ozone Season, Tons) and Compliance Costs (Million 2016$), 2025-2044
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions reductions (ozone season, tons) Compliance costs (million 2016$)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGUs Non-EGUs Total EGUs Non-EGUs Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025.................................................... 1,459 .............. 1,459 $1.0 .............. $1.0
2026.................................................... 1,459 .............. 1,459 1.0 .............. 1.0
2027.................................................... 1,245 .............. 1,245 3.4 .............. 3.4
2028.................................................... 1,245 329 1,574 3.4 $4.3 7.7
2029.................................................... 1,245 329 1,574 3.4 4.3 7.7
2030.................................................... 756 329 1,085 0.7 4.3 5.0
2035.................................................... 513 329 842 0.7 4.3 5.0
2040.................................................... 683 329 1,012 0.3 4.3 4.6
2044.................................................... 722 329 1,051 0.7 4.3 4.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this proposed supplemental rule, the EPA monetizes the health
benefits of avoided ozone and PM2.5-attributable premature
deaths and illnesses by multiplying a benefit per ton coefficient by
the expected State NOX ozone season and primary
PM2.5, NOX and SO2 emissions
reductions. The benefit per ton calculations for EGUs and non-EGUs have
been combined in Table IX-4.
Table IX-4--Estimated Monetized Health Benefits of Avoided Ozone and PM2.5-Attributable Premature Mortality and Illness for the Proposed Rule Emissions
Reductions (EGUs and Non-EGUs), 2025-2044: Monetized Benefits Quantified as Sum of Avoided Morbidity Health Effects and Avoided Long-Term Ozone and
PM2.5 Mortality
[3 Percent discount rate; million 2016$] a b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Ozone PM2.5 Combined total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025............................... $16 and $110......................... $32 and $69.......................... $48 and $180.
2026............................... $16 and $110......................... $32 and $69.......................... $48 and $180.
2027............................... $14 and $96.......................... $4.7 and $9.9........................ $19 and $110.
2028............................... $18 and $140......................... $8.3 and $17......................... $26 and $160.
2029............................... $18 and $140......................... $8.3 and $17......................... $26 and $160.
2030............................... $13 and $99.......................... $5.4 and $11......................... $18 and $110.
2031............................... $13 and $99.......................... $5.4 and $11......................... $18 and $110.
2032............................... $12 and $95.......................... $4.9 and $9.8........................ $17 and $100.
2033............................... $12 and $95.......................... $4.9 and $9.8........................ $17 and $100.
2034............................... $12 and $95.......................... $4.9 and $9.8........................ $17 and $100.
2035............................... $12 and $95.......................... $4.9 and $9.8........................ $17 and $100.
2036............................... $12 and $95.......................... $4.9 and $9.8........................ $17 and $100.
2037............................... $12 and $95.......................... $4.9 and $9.8........................ $17 and $100.
2038............................... $14 and $120......................... $4.8 and $9.5........................ $19 and $130.
2039............................... $14 and $120......................... $4.8 and $9.5........................ $19 and $130.
2040............................... $14 and $120......................... $4.8 and $9.5........................ $19 and $130.
2041............................... $14 and $120......................... $4.8 and $9.5........................ $19 and $130.
2042............................... $14 and $120......................... $4.8 and $9.5........................ $19 and $130.
2043............................... $15 and $130......................... $6 and $12........................... $21 and $140.
2044............................... $15 and $130......................... $6 and $12........................... $21 and $140.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Values rounded to two significant figures.
b The benefits are associated with two point estimates from two different epidemiologic studies. The lower estimates includes ozone mortality estimated
using the pooled Katsouyanni et al. (2009), the Zanobetti and Schwartz (2008) short-term risk estimates, and the Wu et al. (2020) long-term PM2.5
exposure mortality risk estimate. The higher estimates includes ozone mortality estimated using the Turner et al. (2016) long-term risk estimate and
the Pope et al. (2019) long-term PM2.5 exposure mortality risk estimate. Health benefits are discounted at a rate of 3 and 7 percent over the SAB-
recommended 20-year segmented lag. Individual values in the table are not further discounted for purposes of estimating a present value.
Table IX-5 shows the estimated monetary value of the estimated
changes in CO2 emissions from EGUs expected to occur over
2025-2044 for this proposed rule. The EPA estimated the dollar value of
the CO2-related effects
[[Page 12717]]
for each year between 2025 and 2044 by applying the SC-CO2
estimates to the estimated changes in CO2 emissions in the
corresponding year.
Table IX-5--Stream of Climate Benefits From EGU CO2 Emissions Reductions, 2025-2044
[Millions of 2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discount rate and statistic
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% 95th
Year 5% Average 3% Average 2.5% Average percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025............................................ $0.6 $2.1 $3.0 $6.2
2026............................................ 0.6 2.1 3.1 6.3
2027............................................ 0.5 1.5 2.2 4.6
2028............................................ 0.5 1.5 2.3 4.7
2029............................................ 0.5 1.6 2.3 4.8
2030............................................ 0.5 1.7 2.5 5.2
2031............................................ 0.6 1.8 2.5 5.3
2032............................................ 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4
2033............................................ 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4
2034............................................ 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4
2035............................................ 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4
2036............................................ 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4
2037............................................ 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.4
2038............................................ -0.1 -0.3 -0.4 -0.8
2039............................................ -0.1 -0.3 -0.4 -0.8
2040............................................ -0.1 -0.3 -0.4 -0.8
2041............................................ -0.1 -0.3 -0.4 -0.8
2042............................................ -0.1 -0.3 -0.4 -0.8
2043............................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2044............................................ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Individual values in the table are not further discounted for purposes of estimating a present value.
The EPA calculates the monetized net benefits of the proposed rule
by subtracting the estimated monetized compliance costs from the
estimated monetized health and climate benefits. The benefits include
those to public health associated with reductions ozone and
PM2.5 concentrations, as well as those to climate associated
with reductions in GHG emissions. The EPA presents estimates of the PV
of the monetized benefits and costs over the 20-year period 2025 to
2044. To calculate the PV of the social net-benefits of the proposed
rule, annual benefits and costs are discounted to 2023 at 3 percent and
7 discount rates as recommended by OMB's Circular A-4. The EPA also
presents the EAV, which represents a flow of constant annual values
that, had they occurred in each year from 2025 to 2044, would yield a
sum equivalent to the PV. The EAV represents the value of a typical
cost or benefit for each year of the analysis. Table IX-6 provides the
comparison of benefits and costs in PV and EAV terms for the proposed
rule. Estimates in the table are presented as rounded values. For the
20-year period of 2025 to 2044, the PV of the net benefits, in 2016$
and discounted to 2023, is $270 and $1,800 million when using a 3
percent discount rate and $180 and $1,100 million when using a 7
percent discount rate. The EAV is $18 and $120 million per year when
using a 3 percent discount rate and $17 and $110 million when using a 7
percent discount rate.
Table IX-6--Summary of Present Values and Equivalent Annualized Values for the 2025-2044 Timeframe for Estimated Monetized Compliance Costs, Benefits, and Net Benefits for the Proposed Rule
[Millions of 2016$, discounted to 2023] a
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health benefits Climate Cost c Net benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------- benefits -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
3% 7% 3% 3% 7% 3% 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2025.............................. $45 and $170.................. $38 and $140................. $1.9 $1.0 $0.9 $46 and $170................. $39 and $140.
2026.............................. $44 and $160.................. $35 and $130................. 1.9 1.0 0.9 $45 and $160................. $36 and $130.
2027.............................. $17 and $94................... $12 and $72.................. 1.4 3.0 2.6 $15 and $92.................. $11 and $71.
2028.............................. $23 and $140.................. $17 and $100................. 1.3 6.6 5.5 $17 and $130................. $13 and $99.
2029.............................. $22 and $130.................. $16 and $97.................. 1.3 6.4 5.1 $17 and $130................. $12 and $93.
2030.............................. $15 and $89................... $9.9 and $62................. 1.4 4.1 3.1 $12 and $87.................. $8.2 and $60.
2031.............................. $15 and $87................... $9.3 and $58................. 1.4 3.9 2.9 $12 and $84.................. $7.7 and $56.
2032.............................. $13 and $80................... $7.8 and $51................. -0.1 3.8 2.7 $9.0 and $76................. $5.0 and $48.
2033.............................. $13 and $78................... $7.3 and $47................. -0.1 3.7 2.5 $8.8 and $74................. $4.7 and $45.
2034.............................. $12 and $76................... $6.8 and $44................. -0.1 3.6 2.4 $8.5 and $72................. $4.4 and $42.
2035.............................. $12 and $74................... $6.4 and $41................. -0.1 3.5 2.2 $8.2 and $70................. $4.1 and $39.
2036.............................. $12 and $71................... $6.0 and $39................. -0.1 3.4 2.1 $8.0 and $68................. $3.8 and $360.
2037.............................. $11 and $69................... $5.6 and $36................. -0.1 3.3 1.9 $7.8 and $66................. $3.6 and $34.
2038.............................. $12 and $83................... $6.3 and $43................. -0.2 2.9 1.7 $9.0 and $80................. $4.4 and $41.
2039.............................. $12 and $81................... $5.9 and $40................. -0.2 2.8 1.5 $8.7 and $78................. $4.1 and $38.
2040.............................. $11 and $78................... $5.5 and $38................. -0.2 2.8 1.4 $8.4 and $75................. $3.9 and $36.
2041.............................. $11 and $76................... $5.1 and $35................. -0.2 2.7 1.4 $8.2 and $73................. $3.6 and $34.
2042.............................. $11 and $74................... $4.8 and $33................. -0.2 2.6 1.3 $8.0 and $71................. $3.4 and $31.
[[Page 12718]]
2043.............................. $12 and $79................... $4.8 and $31................. 0.0 2.8 1.3 $8.9 and $76................. $3.5 and $30.
2044.............................. $11 and $76................... $4.4 and $29................. 0.0 2.7 1.2 $8.6 and $74................. $3.2 and $28.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PV 2025-2044.................. $330 and $1,900............... $210 and $1,200.............. 9.3 67 45 $270 and $1,800.............. $180 and $1,100.
EAV 2025-2044................. $22 and $130.................. $20 and $110................. 0.6 4.5 4.2 $18 and $120................. $17 and $110.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Rows may not appear to add correctly due to rounding.
X. Summary of Proposed Changes to Existing Regulatory Text
This section describes proposed amendments to the regulatory text
in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to apply the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan's requirements to emissions sources in Arizona, Iowa,
Kansas, New Mexico, and Tennessee. The proposed CFR amendments relating
to EGUs and to non-EGUs are addressed in section X.A. and section X.B.
of this document, respectively. In section X.C. of this document, the
EPA describes additional proposed CFR amendments that would make
technical corrections or clarifications to the regulatory text as
finalized in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. The EPA has included
documents showing the proposed amendments in redline-strikeout format
in the docket for this proposed action.
A. Amendments To Apply the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's Requirements to
EGUs in Additional States
The primary CFR amendments that would apply the Federal Good
Neighbor Plans requirements to EGUs in Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New
Mexico, and Tennessee would be made in the FIP provisions addressing
states' good neighbor obligations related to ozone in 40 CFR part 52 as
well as in the regulations for the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 Trading Program in 40 CFR part 97, subpart GGGGG. In addition,
amendments to address the transition of the EGUs in Iowa, Kansas, and
Tennessee from the Group 2 trading program to the Group 3 trading
program would be made in the regulations for the Group 2 trading
program in 40 CFR part 97, subpart EEEEE, and conforming revisions
would be made in the regulations for the Group 1 trading program in 40
CFR part 97, subpart BBBBB.
The FIP provisions that identify the states whose EGU sources must
participate in the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1, Group 2,
and Group 3 trading programs with respect to specified control periods
to address transported ozone pollution are set forth at Sec.
52.38(b)(2). The proposed expansion of the applicability of the Group 3
trading program to sources in the five newly added states starting with
the 2025 control period would be implemented at Sec.
52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E). The proposed end to the applicability of the Group
2 trading program (with the exception of certain provisions) for
sources in Iowa, Kansas, and Tennessee after the 2024 control period
would be implemented at Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(ii)(A).
In the Federal Good Neighbor Plan, the EPA retained several
previously established options for states to revise their SIPs to
modify or replace the FIPs applicable to their sources while continuing
to use the Group 3 trading program as the mechanism for meeting the
states' good neighbor obligations. Under this proposal, the provision
at Sec. 52.38(b)(10) establishing an option for a State to replace
allowance allocations for a single control period would be amended to
make the option available for the five newly added states for the 2026
control period,\168\ with coordinated revisions to the Group 3 trading
program regulations as discussed later in this section X.A. The
provisions at Sec. 52.38(b)(11) and (12) establishing options for a
State to adopt an abbreviated or full SIP revision starting with the
2025 control period would remain available to states already covered by
the Group 3 trading program and would be amended to make the options
available to the newly added states starting with the 2027 control
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ The provision as it exists before the proposed amendments
is obsolete because no State elected to use the provision to
establish state-determined allocations for the 2024 control period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The general FIP provisions applicable to all states covered by this
rule as set forth in Sec. 52.38(b)(2) would be replicated in the
state-specific subparts of 40 CFR part 52 for each of the five states
that the EPA is proposing to add to the Group 3 trading program.\169\
In each such state-specific CFR subpart, provisions would be added
indicating that sources in the State would be required to participate
in the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program with
respect to emissions starting in 2025. Provisions would also be added
repeating the substance of Sec. 52.38(b)(13)(i), which provides that
the Administrator's full and unconditional approval of a full SIP
revision correcting the same SIP deficiency that is the basis for a FIP
promulgated in this rulemaking would cause the FIP to no longer apply
to sources subject to the State's CAA implementation planning
authority, and Sec. 52.38(b)(14)(ii), which provides the EPA with
authority to complete recordation of EPA-determined allowance
allocations for any control period for which the EPA has already
started such recordation notwithstanding the approval of a State's SIP
revision establishing state-determined allowance allocations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ See proposed Sec. Sec. 52.154(a) (Arizona), 52.840(b)
(Iowa), 52.882(b) (Kansas), 52.1641 (New Mexico), and 52.2240(e)
(Tennessee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each of the three states that the EPA is proposing to remove
from the Group 2 trading program, the provisions of the state-specific
CFR subparts indicating that sources in the State are required to
participate in that trading program would be revised to end that
requirement with respect to emissions after 2024, and a further
provision would be added repeating the substance of Sec.
52.38(b)(14)(iii), which identifies certain provisions that continue to
apply to sources and allowances notwithstanding discontinuation of a
trading program with respect to a particular state. In addition,
obsolete text concerning the unexercised option to adopt full SIP
revisions to replace the FIPs issued under the CSAPR Update would be
removed.
To implement the geographic expansion of the Group 3 trading
program and the trading budgets
[[Page 12719]]
proposed under the new and amended FIPs in this rulemaking, several
sections of the Group 3 trading program regulations would be amended.
Revisions identifying the applicable control periods, the starting
years for certain allocation provisions, the deadlines for
certification of monitoring systems, and the deadlines for commencement
of quarterly reporting for sources in the newly added states would be
made at Sec. Sec. 97.1006(c)(3), 97.1012, 97.1030(b)(1), and
97.1034(d)(2)(i), respectively. Revisions identifying the new or
revised budgets, new unit set-aside percentages, and variability limits
under the Group 3 trading program for the control periods starting in
2025 for the newly added states would be made at Sec. 97.1010, while
revisions ending the corresponding provisions under the Group 2 trading
program for control periods after 2024 would be made at Sec. 97.810.
Revisions to Sec. 97.1021 would establish the schedule for recording
unit-level allocations of allowances to sources in the newly added
states for the 2025 and 2026 control periods, including the schedule
that would apply with respect to allocations for the 2026 control
period if a State exercises the proposed option to establish state-
determined allocations for that control period.
The proposed creation of an additional Group 3 allowance bank for
the 2025 control period through the conversion of banked 2017-2024
Group 2 allowances as discussed in section VII.A.5. of this document
would be implemented at a new Sec. 97.826(f)(1).\170\ Related
provisions addressing the use of Group 3 allowances to satisfy
compliance obligations under the Group 1 trading program or the Group 2
trading program arising after the conversion would be implemented at
new Sec. Sec. 97.526(e)(4) and 97.826(g)(3), respectively. Related
provisions addressing delayed recordation of allocations of Group 1 or
Group 2 allowances after the conversion would be implemented at new
Sec. Sec. 97.526(d)(2)(iv) and 97.826(f)(2), respectively. A
coordinating amendment that excludes the emissions budgets of the newly
added states from the Group 3 allowance bank recalibration target for
the 2025 control period would be implemented at Sec. 97.1026(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ The provision currently designated as Sec. 97.826(f)
would be redesignated as Sec. 97.826(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the EPA proposes to make conforming revisions to cross-
references necessitated by the other amendments already described at
Sec. 52.38(b)(14) and in several sections of the regulations for the
Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 trading programs.
B. Amendments To Apply the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's Requirements to
Non-EGUs in Additional States
The CFR amendments that would apply the Federal Good Neighbor Plans
requirements to non-EGUs in Arizona would be made in the FIP provisions
for non-EGUs promulgated in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan in 40 CFR
52.40 through 52.46. A proposed amendment to Sec. 52.40(c)(2) would
extend applicability of the non-EGU requirements under all seven of
these CFR sections to Arizona emissions sources starting with the 2027
control period. This provision would be substantively replicated in the
state-specific subpart of 40 CFR part 52 for Arizona at proposed Sec.
52.154(b).
In addition, each provision in Sec. Sec. 52.40 through 52.46 that
either repeats the general applicability deadline from Sec.
52.40(c)(2) or that establishes a deadline for a specific requirement
or option would be revised to clearly indicate the applicable deadline
for sources in Arizona as well as the applicable deadline for sources
in states already covered by the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's
requirements. In most cases, the EPA is proposing to establish the
deadlines for Arizona sources 1 year after the comparable deadlines for
sources in the other states. However, in cases where the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan established a deadline in terms of a certain interval
after the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's effective date, the EPA is
proposing to similarly establish a comparable deadline for Arizona
sources in terms of the same interval after the effective date of a
final rule in this rulemaking.
C. Technical Corrections and Clarifications to Previously Finalized
Regulatory Text
In addition to the amendments described in sections X.A. and X.B.
for this document to implement the proposed extension of the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan's requirements to emissions sources in additional
states, the EPA is also proposing to make various technical corrections
and clarifications to the previously finalized regulatory text. Most of
the revisions would replace incorrect cross-references, improve grammar
and clarity, or fix typographical errors. These corrections are not
individually described in this preamble but are shown in the documents
included in the docket for this rulemaking, which show all proposed
changes to the regulatory text in redline-strikeout format.
Beyond the corrections of cross-references and grammatical and
typographical errors, the EPA proposes to make the following additional
technical corrections to the regulatory text for EGUs:
The backstop daily NOX emissions rate
provisions at Sec. Sec. 97.1006(c)(1)(i)(B) and 97.1024(b)(1)(ii)
would be revised to clarify that the 50-ton threshold that must be
crossed before cumulative exceedances of the backstop daily rate
require surrender of extra allowances applies individually to each unit
subject to the backstop rate provisions, as discussed in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan preamble at 88 FR 36791-93, and not to all the units
at a source on a collective basis.
The backstop daily NOX emissions rate
provisions at Sec. 97.1024(b)(3) would be revised to avoid
inadvertently applying the backstop emissions rate provisions in
control periods after 2029 to units without installed SCR controls in
states where the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's identified emissions
control stringency does not include the installation of new SCR
controls.
The ``maximum controlled baseline'' language in the
allowance allocation provisions at Sec. Sec. 97.1011(b)(4)(ii) and
97.1012(a)(4)(ii) would be revised to avoid inadvertently applying SCR-
based assumptions in the calculations of allowance allocations to units
without installed SCR controls in states where the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan's identified emissions control stringency does not
include the installation of new SCR controls.
The secondary emissions limitation provisions at Sec.
97.1025(c)(1) would be revised to clarify that the provisions do not
apply before the 2024 control period, as stated in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan preamble at 88 FR 36798 and consistent with the
provisions for the timing of compliance requirements at Sec.
97.1006(c)(3)(ii).
The provisions to create an initial allowance bank for
states transitioning to the Group 3 trading program under the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan at Sec. 97.826(e)(1)(ii)(B) would be revised to
clarify that the initial bank target used to determine the conversion
factor is calculated as 21 percent of the sum of the 2024 trading
budgets under Sec. 97.1010(a)(1)(i) for the relevant states, not as
the potentially different sum of the final 2024 variability limits
under Sec. 97.1010(e) for the relevant states, because the final 2024
variability limit values under Sec. 97.1010(e) would not be known
until after the deadline for
[[Page 12720]]
carrying out the bank conversion procedure.
The provision at Sec. 52.38(b)(14)(iii)(A) that clarifies
the continued applicability of the EPA's allowance housekeeping
authority after the sources in a State no longer participate in a given
trading program would be revised to include Group 3 allowances, in
light of the interim transition of sources in several states out of the
Group 3 trading program in response to judicial stay orders.
Beyond the corrections of cross-references and grammatical and
typographical errors, the EPA proposes to make the following additional
technical corrections to the regulatory text for non-EGUs:
The definition of ``ozone season'' currently provided as
part of the general requirements of the non-EGU regulations at Sec.
52.40(c)(1) would be broken out as a freestanding definition and
relocated to Sec. 52.40(b). The revision would clarify the
regulations.
The recordkeeping provisions at Sec. Sec. 52.41(f),
52.42(e), 52.43(f), 52.44(h)(1) through (3), 52.45(e)(1), and 52.46(f)
would be revised by adding language to the introductory text stating
that the recordkeeping requirements apply only with respect to
operations during the ozone season (unless stated otherwise),
consistent with the existing regulations in the general recordkeeping
requirements at Sec. 52.40(c)(3). The revisions would also add cross-
references to the general recordkeeping requirements at Sec.
52.40(c)(3) and (f), where additional details on recordkeeping
requirements are provided. Relatedly, the recordkeeping provisions at
Sec. 52.45(e)(2) for low-use industrial boilers would be revised to
correctly cross-reference Sec. 52.40(f) (but not Sec. 52.40(c)(3))
and to include language stating that the recordkeeping requirements of
that provision apply with respect to operations throughout the calendar
year, consistent with the qualification criteria for the low-use
exemption. The revisions would clarify the regulations.
Two types of corrections would be made to the reporting
provisions at Sec. Sec. 52.40(g), 52.41(g), 52.42(f), 52.43(g),
52.44(i), 52.45(f), and 52.46(g). First, a statement would be added to
Sec. 52.40(g) clarifying that requirements to use the EPA's Compliance
and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) or an analogous
electronic submission system provided by the EPA apply with respect to
not only annual reports but also excess emissions reports, consistent
with similar statements already included in the industry-specific
reporting provisions. Second, the industry-specific reporting
provisions for excess emissions reports and annual reports would be
revised to remove a statement that the reports are required to be
submitted in pdf format, which is not correct in all situations, and to
add a statement indicating that the appropriate submission instructions
for reports submitted via CEDRI will be provided in CEDRI. In
conjunction with the additional cross-reference corrections that the
EPA is proposing to make in this rulemaking (as discussed at the
beginning of this section X.C.), each of the industry-specific
reporting provisions would include a correct cross-reference to the
general reporting provisions Sec. 52.40(g), where information on the
report format requirements for various situations is set forth in
greater detail. The revisions would clarify the regulations.
Several provisions concerning non-report submissions--that
is, optional or required submissions other than required excess
emissions reports and annual reports--would be revised to indicate that
sources must make the submissions to the EPA via CEDRI or an analogous
electronic submission system provided by the EPA. First, provisions at
Sec. Sec. 52.40(e)(1), 52.41(b)(1)(ii), 52.43(d)(4)(iii)(B), and
52.45(d)(2)(vii) which do not currently reflect the EPA's intent for
all submissions to be made electronically would be revised to require
use of the appropriate standard electronic submission mechanisms.
Second, a provision at Sec. 52.43(d)(1) which currently identifies the
standard electronic submission mechanisms for reports would be revised
to identify the standard electronic submission mechanisms for non-
report submissions. Finally, the provision currently designated as
Sec. 52.45(d)(4) \171\ which currently identifies only CEDRI would be
revised to also include the standard reference to an analogous
electronic submission system. The revisions would make these provisions
consistent with the other provisions governing non-report submissions
throughout the Federal Good Neighbor Plan's non-EGU regulations and
would clarify the regulations. See Sec. Sec. 52.40(d)(4), (d)(9)(ii),
and (e)(7)(ii); 52.41(d); 52.42(g)(2); 52.43(d)(1), (g)(1), and (h)(2);
and 52.44(d)(1), (e)(1), and (j)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ The EPA is proposing to redesignate this provision as
Sec. 52.45(d)(3)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the regulations governing compliance extension requests
at Sec. 52.40(d), the regulations governing case-by-case emissions
limit requests at Sec. 52.40(e), and the regulations governing steel
reheat furnace work plan submissions at Sec. 52.43(d)(4), multiple
revisions would be made to the provisions concerning notifications from
the EPA to sources. First, each of the provisions specifically
identifying CEDRI as a mechanism for electronic notifications from the
EPA would be revised to instead provide for the EPA's notifications to
be made more generally ``in writing or via an electronic submission
system provided by the EPA,'' because CEDRI is not currently capable of
serving this purpose. Second, a provision at Sec. 52.43(d)(4)(iii)(B)
that does not currently identify any electronic notification mechanism
would be revised to include the same general reference to ``an
electronic submission system provided by the EPA'' as the other
notification provisions. Third, current phrases in Sec. Sec.
52.40(d)(8) and (e)(6) and 52.43(d)(4)(ii) calling for the
notifications to be made publicly available would be removed as overly
broad, because some of the notifications made under those paragraphs do
not concern final Agency decisions but instead concern non-final
expressions of intent which the Agency did not mean to include within
the scope of the public availability requirements. Finally, the
revisions would add a new sentence to Sec. 52.43(d)(4)(ii) that
requires the relevant final decisions under that paragraph to be made
publicly available but does not require any non-final expressions of
intent to be made publicly available. See also Sec. 52.43(d)(4)(iv)
(requiring other types of final decisions to be made publicly
available). In the case of Sec. 52.40(d)(8) and (e)(6), the removed
phrases about public availability requirements would not be replaced
because other related provisions already require the relevant final
decisions under those paragraphs to be made publicly available. See
Sec. 52.40(d)(6) and (e)(4); see also Sec. 52.40(d)(10) and (e)(8)
(requiring other types of final decisions to be made publicly
available). The revisions would clarify the regulations.
The definition of ``facility'' in the regulations for
natural gas pipeline engines at Sec. 52.41(a) would be revised to
refer to ``the set of states'' instead of ``the 20 states'' covered by
the non-EGU regulations. The revision would clarify the regulations and
maintain the intent of the current definition as finalized in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan, which was to ensure that any facility-wide
averaging plans do not extend beyond the geographic area covered by the
regulations. See 88 FR 36824.
The provisions on testing and monitoring requirements for
natural gas pipeline engines at Sec. 52.43(e) would be revised to
correctly indicate the terms of
[[Page 12721]]
the partial exemption created for certain engines in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan. As discussed in the rulemaking record, the EPA
determined that it is appropriate to exempt engines that operate
primarily during peak hours outside the ozone season and that operate
for 50 hours or less during the ozone season from most of the testing
and monitoring requirements applicable to other engines, with the
exception of the requirement for an initial performance test. See EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0668-1127, Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Response to Public
Comments on Proposed Rule, at 657. As revised, the provision at Sec.
52.43(e)(6) would correctly specify which testing and monitoring
requirements are covered by the exemption and would state the correct
ozone season operating hour ceiling of 50 hours. Also, the largely
duplicative provision currently at Sec. 52.43(e)(3)(iii) would be
removed and the provision currently designated as Sec. 52.43(e)(3)(iv)
would be redesignated as Sec. 52.43(e)(3)(iii). The revisions would
bring the regulations into agreement with the EPA's intent as discussed
in the rulemaking record and improve clarity.
The definitions section of the regulations for cement
kilns at Sec. 52.42(a) would be revised by removing a definition of
``cement plant'' because the term is not used in the final regulations.
The applicability provisions of the regulations covering
steel reheat furnaces at Sec. 52.43(b) would be revised to eliminate
the possibility of an incorrect inference that a unit previously
affected under the regulations might no longer be affected after
installation of low-NOX burners. The EPA's intent for the
regulations to remain in effect for a given affected unit after any
installation of low-NOX burners is clear from the overall
structure of the regulations, including the requirements for work plans
to set emissions limits achieving a minimum 40 percent reduction from
baseline emissions levels for affected units based on the installation
of low-NOX burners or alternative low-NOX
technologies and the requirements for testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting to ensure compliance with those limits
following installation. See Sec. 52.43(d) through (g). There is also
no mention anywhere in the regulations or in the preamble of the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan of any possibility that a unit's status
could change from affected to non-affected following the installation
of low-NOX burners. The revision would clarify the
regulations.
The initial notification provisions of the regulations
covering steel reheat furnaces at Sec. 52.43(h)(2) would be revised to
add a phrase stating that the initial notification requirement does not
apply to sources that already have low-NOX burners
installed. The revision would clarify the regulations by making the
description of affected units in this paragraph consistent with the
applicability criteria set forth in Sec. 52.43(b).
The emissions limitations provisions for glass
manufacturing furnaces at Sec. 52.44(c) would be revised to clarify
how and when the exemptions during startup, shutdown and idling apply.
As currently written, the provision could be interpreted as allowing an
all-or-none package of shutdown and idling exemptions for the 2026
ozone season, if the regulations' shutdown and idling requirements are
all met, and a broader all-or-none package of startup, shutdown, and
idling exemptions for subsequent ozone seasons, if the regulations'
startup, shutdown, and idling requirements are all met. The revised
language would clarify that the exemptions during startup, shutdown,
and idling are each available independently of the other exemptions if
the appropriate requirements are met, and that this is the case for all
ozone seasons. The EPA's intent for the startup, shutdown, and idling
exemptions to be independent of one another is evident from the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan preamble. See, e.g., 88 FR 36831 (``The emissions
limits for glass melting furnaces in Sec. 52.44(c) do not apply during
periods of start-up, shutdown, and/or idling at affected units that
comply instead with the alternative requirements for start-up,
shutdown, and/or idling periods specified in Sec. 52.44(d), (e), and/
or (f), respectively.'' (emphasis added)). Moreover, the preamble
contains no discussion indicating any intent for the exemptions to
apply differently in the 2026 ozone season than in subsequent ozone
seasons. The revisions would clarify the regulations.
In the recordkeeping provisions for glass manufacturing
furnaces at Sec. 52.44(h), a provision concerning operating parameters
would be redesignated from Sec. 52.44(h)(1)(vii)(D) to Sec.
52.44(h)(1)(viii) to correctly indicate that the provision's
application is not limited to situations where continuous emissions
monitoring systems (CEMS) are being used, and the succeeding
subparagraphs of Sec. 52.44(h)(1) would be renumbered accordingly. The
correction is needed because the affected units are required to use the
operating parameters for monitoring purposes only when CEMS are not
being used. See Sec. 52.44(g)(2) and (3).
The provisions of the industrial boiler testing and
monitoring requirements at Sec. 52.45(d)(2)(vii) concerning requests
for alternative monitoring requirements would be revised to explicitly
require that if such a request is approved, the facility must request
that the relevant permitting Agency incorporate the approved monitoring
procedure into the facility's title V permit. The revision would ensure
consistency with other provisions of the non-EGU regulations that call
for facility-specific requirements to be incorporated into the
facility's title V permits. See Sec. Sec. 52.40(d)(5) and (e)(3) and
52.45(d)(4).\172\ The revision would also carry out the Agency's
broader intent expressed in the Federal Good Neighbor Plan for
facilities' applicable requirements to be incorporated into their title
V permits. See 88 FR 36844.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ The EPA is proposing to redesignate Sec. 52.45(d)(4) as
Sec. 52.45(d)(3)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions concerning the required annual reports for
industrial boilers at Sec. 52.45(f) would be revised to identify the
required contents of the reports, which would be the records required
under the applicable recordkeeping requirements in Sec. 52.45(e),
including records of CEMS data or operating parameters required under
Sec. 52.45(d). The required contents of the annual reports for
industrial boilers would be fully consistent with the required contents
of the annual reports for the other types of non-EGU sources covered by
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. See Sec. Sec. 52.41(g)(3),
52.42(f)(3), 52.43(g)(4), 52.44(i)(3), and 52.46(g)(2). The revision
would clarify the regulations by filling an obviously unintended gap,
because the regulations currently set forth a requirement for
submission of annual reports but lack any description of what the
required reports should contain. In addition, because the required
contents of the annual reports would include the CEMS-related data that
are currently identified as the contents of a separate reporting
requirement in Sec. 52.45(f)(3), that separate reporting requirement
would be eliminated as redundant, and the annual report provision would
be redesignated as Sec. 52.45(f)(3).
The definitions section of the municipal waste combustor
regulations at Sec. 52.46(a) would be revised to include a definition
of ``municipal solid waste'' matching the definition of the same
[[Page 12722]]
term in the standards of performance for new large municipal waste
combustors at 40 CFR 60.51b. The portions of the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan preamble discussing the requirements for municipal waste
combustors contain no discussion of any intention to introduce a
definition of municipal solid waste for these regulations differing
from the definition included in the EPA's other regulations for large
municipal waste combustors. See 88 FR 36836-38. Addition of the
definition would clarify the regulations. Also, definitions in Sec.
52.46(a) for ``mass burn refractory municipal waste combustor'', ``mass
burn rotary waterwall municipal waste combustor'', and ``mass burn
waterwall municipal waste combustor'' would be removed because the
terms are not used in the final regulation.
Several provisions of the regulations for municipal waste
combustors at Sec. 52.46 would be revised to better implement the
EPA's intent concerning the treatment of emissions during periods of
startup and shutdown. As indicated in the Final Good Neighbor Plan
preamble at 88 FR 36837, the EPA intended to address startup and
shutdown emissions following an approach previously adopted in the
standards of performance for commercial and industrial solid waste
incineration (CISWI) units at 40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD.
Under this approach, a single set of emissions limits applies at all
times and the calculations of average emissions rates used to determine
compliance with the stated emissions limits use the data measured in
all operating hours, including periods of startup and shutdown, but
unlike the emissions data measured at other times, the emissions data
measured during periods of startup and shutdown are not required to be
corrected to 7 percent oxygen. See, e.g., 40 CFR 60.2145(j)(2)(i) and
(u)(1); 60.2165(n)(4) and (7); 60.2710(j)(2)(i) and (u)(1); and
60.2730(n)(4) and (7). To implement this intended approach in Sec.
52.46, paragraphs (c) and (e)(2)(vi) would be revised to clarify that a
single set of 24-hour block average emission limits and 30-day rolling
average emissions limits applies at all times, subject to differences
in oxygen correction requirements for emissions data measured in
periods of startup and shutdown, while paragraphs (d) and (e)(3) would
be revised to remove separate emissions limits and monitoring
requirements applicable only to periods of startup and shutdown. The
revised regulations would implement the EPA's expressed intent
concerning the treatment of emissions during startup and shutdown more
accurately than the existing regulations.
The provisions on testing and monitoring requirements for
municipal waste combustors at Sec. 52.46(e)(vi) would be revised to
clarify that where a source selects carbon dioxide for use in diluent
corrections, the procedures used to determine the relationship between
oxygen and carbon dioxide levels would be the procedures set forth for
the same purpose in the standards of performance for new large
municipal waste combustors at 40 CFR 60.58b(b)(6). This revision would
correct an unintended omission and is consistent with the EPA's similar
incorporation of aspects of those standards of performance in other
provisions of the testing and monitoring requirements for municipal
waste combustors at Sec. 52.46(e)(2)(ii) and (3)(i).
The reporting provisions for municipal waste combustors at
Sec. 52.46(g) would be revised to add a provision for excess emissions
reports parallel to the excess emissions report provisions for each of
the other non-EGU source categories. The EPA expressly indicated the
intent to require excess emissions reports from all non-EGU source
categories, including municipal waste combustors, in the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan preamble. See 88 FR 36820. The revision would correct an
inadvertent omission and clarify the regulations.
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
This action is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Documentation of any
changes made in response to the Executive Order 12866 review is
available in the docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the
potential impacts associated with this action. This analysis,
``Economic Impact Assessment for the Proposed Supplemental Federal
``Good Neighbor Plan'' Requirements for the 2015 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard'' is briefly summarized in section IX of
this document and is also available in the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
1. Information Collection Request for Electric Generating Units
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2792.01. The EPA has placed a copy of the ICR
in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
The EPA is proposing an ICR, related specifically to EGUs, for this
proposal. The proposed rule would amend the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 trading program addressing seasonal NOX
emissions in various states. Under the proposed amendments, all EGU
sources located in states covered by the Federal Good Neighbor Plan and
unaffected by stay orders would remain in the Group 3 trading program.
Additionally, EGU sources in three states (Iowa, Kansas, and Tennessee)
currently covered by the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
Trading Program would transition from the Group 2 program to the
revised Group 3 trading program beginning with the 2025 ozone season.
Further, sources in Arizona and New Mexico not currently covered by any
CSAPR NOX ozone season trading program would join the
revised Group 3 trading program. In total, EGU sources in 15 states
would now be covered by the Group 3 program.
There is an existing ICR (OMB Control Number 2060-0667), that
includes information collection requirements placed on EGU sources for
the six Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading programs
addressing sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, annual
NOX emissions, or seasonal NOX emissions in
various sets of states, and the Texas SO2 trading program
which is modeled after CSAPR. Additionally, the EPA submitted an EGU
ICR under the Federal Good Neighbor Plan (OMB Control Number 2060-
0745). The ICR in this proposal accounts for the additional respondent
burden related to the addition sources in the five states to the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Group 3 trading program.
The principal information collection requirements under the CSAPR
and Texas trading programs relate to the monitoring and reporting of
emissions and associated data in accordance with 40 CFR part 75. Other
information collection requirements under the programs concern the
submittal of
[[Page 12723]]
information necessary to allocate and transfer emissions allowances and
the submittal of certificates of representation and other typically
one-time registration forms.
Affected sources under the CSAPR and Texas trading programs are
generally stationary, fossil fuel-fired boilers and combustion turbines
serving generators larger than 25 MW producing electricity for sale.
Most of these affected sources are also subject to the Acid Rain
Program (ARP). The information collection requirements under the CSAPR
and Texas trading programs and the ARP substantially overlap and are
fully integrated. The burden and costs of overlapping requirements are
accounted for in the ARP ICR (OMB Control Number 2060-0258). Thus, this
ICR accounts for information collection burden and costs under the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 trading program that are
incremental to the burden and costs already accounted for in both the
ARP and CSAPR ICRs.
For most sources already reporting data under the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 or CSAPR NOX Ozone Group
2 trading programs, there would be no incremental burden or cost, as
reporting requirements will remain identical. Certain sources with a
common stack configuration and/or those that are large, coal-fired
EGUs, will be subject to additional emissions reporting requirements
under the proposed rule. These sources will need to make a one-time
monitoring plan and Data Acquisition and Handling System (DAHS) update
to meet the additional reporting requirements. There is some
incremental cost and burden for those sources in the two states not
currently reporting data under a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
program. Affected sources in Arizona and New Mexico that are already
reporting data as part of the Acid Rain Program only require monitoring
plan and DAHS updates. For the units that already report to EPA under
the Acid Rain Program or the NOX SIP Call, with the
exception of any one-time costs to update monitoring plans and DAHS,
all information collection costs and burden are already reflected in
the previously approved ICRs for those other rules (OMB Control Nos.
2060-0258 and 2060-0445).
In total, there are an estimated 23 units in Arizona and New Mexico
that do not already report data to EPA according to 40 CFR part 75 and
that would need to implement one of the Part 75 monitoring
methodologies including certification of monitoring systems or
implementation of the low mass emissions methodology. These units would
also require monitoring plan and DAHS updates. Of these 23 units, nine
units would be expected to adopt low mass emissions (LME) as the
monitoring method and 14 would be expected to adopt NOX
CEMS/Appendix D monitoring methods.
Respondents/affected entities: Industry respondents are stationary,
fossil fuel-fired boilers and combustion turbines serving electricity
generators subject to the CSAPR and Texas trading programs, as well as
non-source entities voluntarily participating in allowance trading
activities. Potential State respondents are states that can elect to
submit state-determined allowance allocations for sources located in
their states.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Industry respondents: voluntary
and mandatory (sections 110(a) and 301(a) of the CAA).
Estimated number of respondents: EPA estimates that there would be
64 industry respondents.
Frequency of response: on occasion, quarterly, and annually.
Total estimated additional burden: 7,538 hours (per year). Burden
is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
Total estimated additional cost: $1,243,126 (per year); includes
$593,874 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
[email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than March 18,
2024. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final
rule.
2. Information Collection Request for Non-Electric Generating Units
The information collection activities in this proposed rule are
included within OMB ICR Number 2060-0744, ICR for the Final Rule,
Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards: Transport Obligations for non-Electric Generating
Units. The EPA submitted this ICR to OMB under the PRA during the
development of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. In this action, the EPA
proposes to extend the non-EGU regulatory requirements to affected
units within the State of Arizona under the same rationale provided in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. Because the respondent pool in this
action is not well-defined and because the number of affected non-EGU
sources in Arizona estimated to install controls is fewer than ten, we
are not proposing to develop a new ICR or revise the existing ICR at
this time. We will, however, revise the ICR to include any covered non-
EGU sources in Arizona when we renew the ICR. The EPA has filed a copy
of the non-EGU ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here.
ICR No. 2060-0744 is an existing ICR that addresses the burden
associated with new regulatory requirements under the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan. Owners and operators of certain non-EGU industry
stationary sources will potentially modify or install new emissions
controls and associated monitoring systems to meet the NOX
emissions limits of this final rule. The burden in ICR 2060-0744
reflects the new monitoring, calibrating, recordkeeping, reporting and
testing activities required of covered industrial sources, which we are
collecting to ensure compliance with the Federal Good Neighbor Plan. In
accordance with the CAA Amendments of 1990, any monitoring information
to be submitted by sources is a matter of public record. Information
received and identified by owners or operators as CBI and approved as
CBI by the EPA, in accordance with Title 40, Chapter 1, part 2, subpart
B, shall be maintained appropriately (see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR 36902,
September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 8, 1978; 43 FR
42251, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).
Respondents/affected entities: The respondents/affected entities
are the owners/operators of certain non-EGU industry sources in the
following industry sectors: furnaces in Glass and Glass Product
Manufacturing; boilers and furnaces in Iron and Steel Mills and
Ferroalloy Manufacturing; kilns in Cement and Cement Product
Manufacturing; reciprocating internal combustion engines in Pipeline
Transportation of Natural Gas; and boilers in Metal Ore Mining, Basic
Chemical Manufacturing, Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing, and
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills; and
[[Page 12724]]
combustors and incinerators in Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary and mandatory.
(Sections 110(a) and 301(a) of the CAA). Data recorded or reported by
respondents are required by the final Federal Good Neighbor Plan.
Estimated number of respondents: 3,328.
Frequency of response: The specific frequency for each information
collection activity within the non-EGU ICR is shown at the end of the
ICR document in Tables 1 through 18. In general, the frequency varies
across the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting activities. Some
recordkeeping such as work plan preparation is a one-time activity
whereas pipeline engine maintenance recordkeeping is conducted
quarterly. Reporting frequency is on an annual basis.
Total estimated burden: 11,481 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: $3,823,000 (average per year); includes
$2,400,000 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small
businesses, which includes EGUs and non-EGUs and are briefly described
below. In 2028, the EPA identified a total of four EGUs owned by small
entities affected by the proposed rule. Of these, no small entities are
estimated to have costs greater than 1 percent of revenues.
The Agency has determined that there is not a significant number of
small entities potentially affected by the proposed rule that will have
compliance costs greater than 1 percent of annual revenues during the
compliance period. The EPA has concluded that there is not a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for this proposed rule overall. Details of this analysis are presented
in section 3 of the EIA, which is in the public docket.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes
no enforceable duty on any State, local or Tribal government. The
action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal
governments or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action has Tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law.
The EPA is proposing a finding that interstate transport of ozone
precursor emissions from five upwind states (Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New
Mexico, and Tennessee) is interfering with maintenance of the 2015
ozone NAAQS in other states. The EPA is proposing FIP requirements to
eliminate interstate transport of ozone precursors from these five
states. Under CAA section 301(d)(4), the EPA is proposing to extend FIP
requirements to apply in Indian country located within the upwind
geography of the final rule, including Indian reservation lands and
other areas of Indian country over which the EPA or a tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. The EPA's proposed
determinations in this regard are described further in section V.B.,
Application of Rule in Indian Country and Necessary or Appropriate
Finding. The EPA proposes that all covered existing and new EGU and
non-EGU sources that are located in the ``301(d) FIP'' areas within the
geographic boundaries of the covered states, and which would be subject
to this rule if located within areas subject to State CAA planning
authority, should be included in this rule. To the EPA's knowledge, two
covered existing EGU or non-EGU sources are located within the 301(d)
FIP areas: the South Point Energy Center located on the Fort Mojave
Reservation, and the Four Corners Power Plant on the Navajo
Reservation. These EGU sources are geographically located within the
borders of Arizona and New Mexico, respectively. This action has Tribal
implication because of the extension of FIP requirements into Indian
country and because, in general, tribes have a vested interest in how
this final rule would affect air quality.
The EPA consulted with Tribal officials under the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process
of developing the Federal Good Neighbor Plan to permit them to have
meaningful and timely input into its development. The EPA hosted an
environmental justice webinar on October 26, 2021, that was attended by
State regulatory authorities, environmental groups, federally
recognized tribes, and small business stakeholders. Summaries of prior
consultations are included in the docket for the Federal Good Neighbor
Plan (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668). The EPA will also continue
to consult with the governments of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of the
Fort Mojave Reservation, the Navajo Nation of the Navajo Reservation,
and plans to further consult with any other Tribal officials under the
EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in
the process of developing this proposed regulation to solicit
meaningful and timely input into its development. The EPA plans to
issue Tribal consultation letters addressed to the appropriate tribes
in [Month Year] after the proposed rule is signed. Consultation
summaries will be included in the docket for this action and in a
summary section in the preamble when this action is finalized.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an
evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation
on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the
regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe
the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to children. This action's health and
risk assessments are contained in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Economic
Impact Assessment for the Proposed Supplemental Federal ``Good Neighbor
Plan'' Requirements for the 2015 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard. The EPA determined that the ozone-related benefits,
Fine Particulate Matter-related benefits, and CO2-related
benefits from this final rule will further improve children's health.
However, the EPA's Policy on Children's Health applies to this
action. Information on how the Policy was applied is available in the
Economic Impact Assessment for the Proposed
[[Page 12725]]
Supplemental Federal ``Good Neighbor Plan'' Requirements for the 2015
8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The EPA has prepared a Statement of
Energy Effects for the proposed regulatory control alternative as
follows. The Agency estimates a 0 percent change in retail electricity
prices on average across the contiguous U.S. in 2025 and a 0 percent
change in retail electricity prices on average across the contiguous
U.S. in 2028 as a result of this proposed rule. Additional details of
the estimated retail electricity price changes are presented in section
3 of the EIA at proposal, which is in the public docket.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to
Environmental Justice for All
The EPA believes that the human health and environmental conditions
that exist prior to this action do not result in disproportionate and
adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. The
documentation for this decision is contained in section VIII.
Environmental Justice Considerations, Implications, and Outreach of
this Preamble. Briefly, proximity demographic analyses found larger
percentages of Hispanics, people below the poverty level, people with
less educational attainment, and people linguistically isolated are
living within 5 km and 10 km of an affected EGU, compared to national
averages. It also finds larger percentages of Native Americans and
people below the poverty level living within 5 km and 10 km of an
affected non-EGU facility.
The EPA believes that this action is not likely to result in new
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental
justice concerns. Importantly, the action described in this rule is
expected to lower ozone and PM2.5 in some areas, including
in ozone nonattainment areas, and thus mitigate some pre-existing
health risks across most populations and communities evaluated.
K. Determinations Under CAA Section 307(b)(1) and (d)
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs judicial review of final
actions by the EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for
review must be filed in the D.C. Circuit: (1) when the Agency action
consists of ``nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final
actions taken, by the Administrator,'' or (2) when such action is
locally or regionally applicable, if ``such action is based on a
determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such
action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based
on such a determination.'' For locally or regionally applicable final
actions, the CAA reserves to the EPA complete discretion to decide
whether to invoke the exception in (2).\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ In deciding whether to invoke the exception by making and
publishing a finding that an action is based on a determination of
nationwide scope or effect, the Administrator takes into account a
number of policy considerations, including his judgment balancing
the benefit of obtaining the D.C. Circuit's authoritative
centralized review versus allowing development of the issue in other
contexts and the best use of Agency resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA anticipates that this proposed rulemaking, if finalized,
would be ``nationally applicable'' within the meaning of CAA section
307(b)(1) because it would extend the applicability of the Federal Good
Neighbor Plan promulgated on March 15, 2023 (88 FR 36654 (June 5,
2023)), which as promulgated would apply to 23 states across the
nation, to five additional states located in four EPA regions and four
Federal judicial circuits, in conjunction with partial disapproval of
the SIP submissions from these five states. The final rule would
directly implement the Federal Good Neighbor Plan in these five
additional states based on application of the same, nationally
consistent 4-step interstate transport framework for assessing good
neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS that the EPA applied in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan promulgated on March 15, 2023, and in
other nationally applicable rulemakings, such as CSAPR, the CSAPR
Update, and the Revised CSAPR Update. The final rule would thus apply a
uniform, nationwide analytical method and interpretation of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) across the covered states, expanding the scope of
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan to a total of up to 28 states across the
nation. The final rule would also make technical corrections to the
nationally applicable regulatory provisions promulgated in the Federal
Good Neighbor Plan, see section X.C. of this document.
In the alternative, to the extent a court finds this action, if
finalized, to be locally or regionally applicable, the Administrator
intends to exercise the complete discretion afforded to him under the
CAA to make and publish a finding that the final action is based on
several determinations of ``nationwide scope or effect'' within the
meaning of CAA section 307(b)(1). This proposal, if finalized, would be
based on several determinations of nationwide scope or effect, each of
which has the purpose of ensuring consistency and equity across all
states, including: (1) the determination that use of the same 2023 and
2026 analytical year air quality modeling and monitoring analytics
(including the use of the violating-monitor receptor identification
methodology) that were used to define all other states' good neighbor
obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is appropriate for purposes of
defining the obligations of the five additional states in this action;
(2) the determination that use of a 1 percent of NAAQS threshold is
appropriate for all states at Step 2 and that neither reliance on the
EPA's August 2018 1 ppb Memo standing alone nor reliance on EPA's
guidance on ``significant impact levels'' (SIL) for the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) permitting program provides adequate
justification for an alternative threshold; (3) the determination that
the same level of emissions control stringency to the same industry and
source types at Step 3 as was determined for 23 other states in the
Federal Good Neighbor Plan is appropriate to apply to these five
additional states; and (4) the determination that the relevant sources
in these five states should be subject to the same nationally uniform
emissions control programs promulgated at Step 4 for 23 other states in
the Federal Good Neighbor Plan.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ A finding of nationwide scope or effect is also
appropriate for actions that cover states in multiple judicial
circuits. In the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section
307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's
determination that the ``nationwide scope or effect'' exception
applies would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or
effect beyond a single judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at
323, 324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These determinations would provide important bases for the action,
if finalized, are needed to ensure consistency and equity in the
treatment of all states in addressing the multistate problem of
interstate ozone pollution
[[Page 12726]]
under the good neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and are not
related to the particularities of the emissions sources in any specific
state. The Federal Good Neighbor Plan and related rulemakings such as
this one are designed as a ``collective approach'' to effectively
address the nationwide problem of interstate ozone transport in an
equitable and consistent manner across all states. See Kentucky Energy
and Environment Cabinet v. EPA, No. 23-3605 (6th Cir. Nov. 9, 2023),
Order at 8. The determinations underlying this proposed action are
therefore of nationwide scope and effect, among other reasons, because
they ensure that the requirements of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan
(until replaced by SIPs meeting the statutory requirements) will be
implemented on a consistent basis across all ``upwind'' states, and
will deliver the full amount of relief from upwind emissions that the
EPA has found downwind jurisdictions are due.\175\ For these reasons,
the Administrator intends, if this proposed action is finalized, to
exercise the complete discretion afforded to him under the CAA to make
and publish a finding that this action is based on several
determinations of nationwide scope or effect for purposes of CAA
section 307(b)(1), including, but not limited to, those identified
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ In the report on the 1977 Amendments that revised section
307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted that the Administrator's
determination that the ``nationwide scope or effect'' exception
applies would be appropriate for any action that has a scope or
effect beyond a single judicial circuit. See H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at
323, 324, reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action is subject to the provisions of CAA section 307(d). CAA
section 307(d)(1)(B) provides that section 307(d) applies to, among
other things, ``the promulgation or revision of an implementation plan
by the Administrator under [CAA section 110(c)].'' 42 U.S.C.
7407(d)(1)(B). This proposed action, among other things, proposes
Federal implementation plans for five additional states to extend the
coverage of the Federal Good Neighbor Plan promulgated at 88 FR 36654
(June 5, 2023). To the extent any portion of this action is not
expressly identified under CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), the Administrator
determines that the provisions of CAA section 307(d) apply to such
action. See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section 307(d)
apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may determine'').
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur dioxide.
40 CFR Part 97
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Electric power plants, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide.
Michael Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 52 and 97 of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations are proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Amend Sec. 52.38 by:
0
a. In paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(C) and (a)(5)(i)(C), removing ``following
the control'' and adding in its place ``following the year of such
control'';
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A), removing ``2017 and each subsequent
year'' and adding in its place ``2017 through 2024 only, except as
provided in paragraph (b)(14)(iii) of this section'';
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(E);
0
d. In paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(C), (b)(5)(ii)(C), (b)(8)(iii)(C), and
(b)(9)(iii)(C), removing ``following the control'' and adding in its
place ``following the year of such control'';
0
e. Revising paragraph (b)(10) introductory text;
0
f. In paragraph (b)(10)(ii), removing ``2024, of'' and adding in its
place ``2026, of'';
0
g. Revising paragraphs (b)(10)(v)(A) and (B);
0
h. In paragraph (b)(11)(iii) introductory text and paragraph
(b)(12)(iii) introductory text, removing ``2025 or'' and adding in its
place ``2025 (or for a State listed in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(E) of this
section, 2027) or'';
0
i. In paragraph (b)(14)(i)(G), removing ``Sec. 97.826(f)'' and adding
in its place ``Sec. 97.826(g)'';
0
j. In paragraph (b)(14)(iii) introductory text, removing ``paragraphs
(b)(2)(i)(B), (b)(2)(ii)(B) or (C), (b)(2)(iii)(D)(1), or'' and adding
in its place ``paragraph (b)(2) or'';
0
k. Revising paragraph (b)(14)(iii)(A);
0
l. In paragraph (b)(14)(iii)(B), removing ``97.826(d) and (e), and''
and adding in its place ``97.826(d) through (f), and''; and
0
m. In paragraph (b)(17)(i), removing ``2024'' and adding in its place
``2026''.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 52.38 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) relating to
emissions of nitrogen oxides?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) * * *
(E) The provisions of subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this chapter
apply to sources in each of the following States and Indian country
located within the borders of such States with regard to emissions
occurring in 2025 and each subsequent year: Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, New
Mexico, and Tennessee.
* * * * *
(10) State-determined allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances for 2026. A State listed in paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(E) of this
section may adopt and include in a SIP revision, and the Administrator
will approve, as CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowance
allocation provisions replacing the provisions in Sec. 97.1011(a)(1)
of this chapter with regard to sources in the State and areas of Indian
country within the borders of the State subject to the State's SIP
authority for the control period in 2026, a list of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 units and the amount of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances allocated to each unit
on such list, provided that the list of units and allocations meets the
following requirements:
* * * * *
(v) * * *
(A) By [15 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the State must
notify the Administrator electronically in a format specified by the
Administrator of the State's intent to submit to the Administrator a
complete SIP revision meeting the requirements of paragraphs (b)(10)(i)
through (iv) of this section by April 1, 2025; and
(B) The State must submit to the Administrator a complete SIP
revision described in paragraph (b)(10)(v)(A) of this section by April
1, 2025.
* * * * *
(14) * * *
(iii) * * *
[[Page 12727]]
(A) The provisions of Sec. Sec. 97.526(c), 97.826(c), and
97.1026(c) of this chapter (concerning the transfer of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 1 allowances, CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 2 allowances, and CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 allowances between certain Allowance Management System accounts
under common control);
* * * * *
Sec. 52.39 [Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 52.39 in paragraphs (e)(1)(iii), (f)(1)(iii),
(h)(1)(iii), and (i)(1)(iii) by removing ``following the control'' and
adding in its place ``following the year of such control''.
0
4. Amend Sec. 52.40 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), removing ``paragraph (b)'' and adding in its place
``paragraph (c)(1)'';
0
b. In paragraph (b):
0
i. In the introductory text, removing the section symbol before
``52.46'';
0
ii. Revising the definitions ``Existing affected unit'' and ``New
affected unit''; and
0
iii. Adding the definition ``Ozone season'' in alphabetical order;
0
c. In paragraph (c)(1), removing ``(defined as May 1 through September
30 of a calendar year)'';
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2) as paragraph (c)(2)(i) and adding
paragraph (c)(2)(ii);
0
e. Revising paragraph (d)(1);
0
f. In paragraph (d)(2), removing ``May 1, 2029'' and adding in its
place ``the start date of the fourth ozone season identified for the
applicable State in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)'';
0
g. Revising paragraphs (d)(3)(v) and (d)(4) through (8) and paragraph
(d)(9) introductory text;
0
h. In paragraph (d)(9)(ii), removing ``the CEDRI or'' and adding in its
place ``CEDRI or an'';
0
i. Revising paragraphs (d)(10) and (11) and (e)(1);
0
j. In paragraph (e)(2)(i)(A)(1), removing ``63.7(e)(2)(ii)(2), or'' and
adding in its place ``63.7(e)(2)(ii), or'';
0
k. Revising paragraphs (e)(3) through (6) and paragraph (e)(7)
introductory text;
0
l. In paragraph (e)(7)(ii), removing ``the CEDRI or'' and adding in its
place ``CEDRI or an'';
0
m. Revising paragraph (e)(8);
0
n. In paragraph (g)(1)(i), removing ``the CEDRI or'' and adding in its
place ``CEDRI or an''; and
0
o. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(iii)(D) and (g)(2).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.40 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from
sources not subject to the CSAPR ozone season trading program?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Existing affected unit means any affected unit for which
construction commenced before August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State
listed in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of
this section.
New affected unit means any affected unit for which construction
commenced on or after August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State listed in
paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE],
for a unit in a State listed in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section.
* * * * *
Ozone season means the period between May 1 and September 30,
inclusive, for a given year.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(ii) The provisions of this section or Sec. 52.41, Sec. 52.42,
Sec. 52.43, Sec. 52.44, Sec. 52.45, or Sec. 52.46 apply to affected
units located in each of the following States, including Indian country
located within the borders of such States, beginning in the 2027 ozone
season and in each subsequent ozone season: Arizona.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) The owner or operator of an existing affected unit under Sec.
52.41, Sec. 52.42, Sec. 52.43, Sec. 52.44, Sec. 52.45, or Sec.
52.46 that cannot comply with the applicable requirements in those
sections by the start date of the first ozone season identified for the
applicable State in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, due to
circumstances entirely beyond the owner or operator's control, may
request an initial compliance extension to a date certain no later than
the start date of the second ozone season identified for the applicable
State in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. The extension request must
contain a demonstration of necessity consistent with the requirements
of paragraph (d)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(v) Identify the owner or operator's proposed compliance date. A
request for an initial compliance extension under paragraph (d)(1) of
this section must specify a proposed compliance date no later than the
start date of the second ozone season identified for the applicable
State in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and state whether the owner
or operator anticipates a need to request a second compliance
extension. A request for a second compliance extension under paragraph
(d)(2) of this section must specify a proposed compliance date no later
than the start date of the fourth ozone season identified for the
applicable State in paragraph (c)(2) of this section and identify
additional actions taken by the owner or operator to ensure that the
affected unit(s) will be in compliance with the applicable requirements
in this section by that proposed compliance date;
* * * * *
(4) Each request for a compliance extension shall be submitted via
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) or an
analogous electronic submission system provided by the EPA no later
than 180 days prior to the applicable compliance date. Until an
extension has been granted by the Administrator under this section, the
owner or operator of an affected unit shall comply with all applicable
requirements of this section and shall remain subject to the compliance
date under paragraph (c)(2) of this section or the initial extended
compliance date under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, as applicable.
A denial will be effective as of the date of denial.
(5) The owner or operator of an affected unit who has requested a
compliance extension under paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section and
is required to have a title V permit shall apply to have the relevant
title V permit revised to incorporate the conditions of the extension
of compliance. The conditions of a compliance extension granted under
paragraph (d)(6) of this section will be incorporated into the affected
unit's title V permit according to the provisions of an EPA-approved
state operating permit program or the Federal title V regulations in 40
CFR part 71, whichever apply.
(6) Based on the information provided in any request made under
paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section or other information, the
Administrator may grant an extension of time to comply with applicable
requirements in Sec. 52.41, Sec. 52.42, Sec. 52.43, Sec. 52.44,
Sec. 52.45, or Sec. 52.46 consistent with the provisions of paragraph
(d)(1) or (2). The decision to grant an extension will be provided by
notification in writing or via an electronic submission system provided
by the EPA, will be made publicly available, and will identify each
affected unit covered by the extension; specify the termination date of
the extension; and specify any additional conditions that the
Administrator deems necessary
[[Page 12728]]
to ensure timely installation of the necessary controls (e.g., the
date(s) by which on-site construction, installation of control
equipment, and/or process changes will be initiated).
(7) The Administrator will provide notification in writing or via
an electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or
operator of an affected unit who has requested a compliance extension
under paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section whether the submitted
request is complete, that is, whether the request contains sufficient
information to make a determination, within 60 calendar days after
receipt of the original request and within 60 calendar days after
receipt of any supplementary information.
(8) The Administrator will provide notification in writing or via
an electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or
operator of a decision to grant or intention to deny a request for a
compliance extension within 60 calendar days after providing written
notification pursuant to paragraph (d)(7) of this section that the
submitted request is complete.
(9) Before denying any request for an extension of compliance, the
Administrator will provide notification in writing or via an electronic
submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or operator of the
Administrator's intention to issue the denial, together with:
* * * * *
(10) The Administrator's final decision to deny any request for an
extension will be provided in writing or via an electronic submission
system provided by the EPA, will be made publicly available, and will
set forth the specific grounds on which the denial is based. The final
decision will be made within 60 calendar days after presentation of
additional information or argument (if the request is complete), or
within 60 calendar days after the deadline for the submission of
additional information or argument under paragraph (d)(9)(ii) of this
section, if no such submission is made.
(11) The granting of an extension under this section shall not
abrogate the Administrator's authority under section 114 of the Act.
(e) * * *
(1) The owner or operator of an existing affected unit under Sec.
52.41, Sec. 52.42, Sec. 52.43, Sec. 52.44, Sec. 52.45, or Sec.
52.46 that cannot comply with the applicable requirements in those
sections due to technical impossibility or extreme economic hardship
may submit to the Administrator, by August 5, 2024, for a unit in a
State listed in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, or [ONE YEAR AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, a request for approval of a case-
by-case emissions limit. The request must be submitted via CEDRI or an
analogous electronic submission system provided by the EPA and shall
contain information sufficient for the Administrator to confirm that
the affected unit is unable to comply with the applicable emissions
limit, due to technical impossibility or extreme economic hardship, and
to establish an appropriate alternative case-by-case emissions limit
for the affected unit. Until a case-by-case emissions limit has been
approved by the Administrator under this section, the owner or operator
shall remain subject to all applicable requirements in Sec. 52.41,
Sec. 52.42, Sec. 52.43, Sec. 52.44, Sec. 52.45, or Sec. 52.46. A
denial will be effective as of the date of denial.
* * * * *
(3) The owner or operator of an affected unit who has requested a
case-by-case emissions limit under paragraph (e)(1) of this section and
is required to have a title V permit shall apply to have the relevant
title V permit revised to incorporate the case-by-case emissions limit.
Any case-by-case emissions limit approved under paragraph (e)(4) of
this section will be incorporated into the affected unit's title V
permit according to the provisions of an EPA-approved state operating
permit program or the Federal title V regulations in 40 CFR part 71,
whichever apply.
(4) Based on the information provided in any request made under
paragraph (e)(1) of this section or other information, the
Administrator may approve a case-by-case emissions limit that will
apply to an affected unit in lieu of the applicable emissions limit in
Sec. 52.41, Sec. 52.42, Sec. 52.43, Sec. 52.44, Sec. 52.45, or
Sec. 52.46. The decision to approve a case-by-case emissions limit
will be provided in writing or via an electronic submission system
provided by the EPA, will be made publicly available, and will identify
each affected unit covered by the case-by-case emissions limit.
(5) The Administrator will provide notification in writing or via
an electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or
operator of an affected unit who has requested a case-by-case emissions
limit under paragraph (e)(1) of this section whether the submitted
request is complete, that is, whether the request contains sufficient
information to make a determination, within 60 calendar days after
receipt of the original request and within 60 calendar days after
receipt of any supplementary information.
(6) The Administrator will provide notification in writing or via
an electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or
operator of a decision to approve or intention to deny the request for
a case-by-case emissions limit within 60 calendar days after providing
notification pursuant to paragraph (e)(5) of this section that the
submitted request is complete.
(7) Before denying any request for a case-by-case emissions limit,
the Administrator will provide notification in writing or via an
electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or
operator of the Administrator's intention to issue the denial, together
with:
* * * * *
(8) The Administrator's final decision to deny any request for a
case-by-case emissions limit will be provided by notification in
writing or via an electronic submission system provided by the EPA,
will be made publicly available, and will set forth the specific
grounds on which the denial is based. The final decision will be made
within 60 calendar days after presentation of additional information or
argument (if the request is complete), or within 60 calendar days after
the deadline for the submission of additional information or argument
under paragraph (e)(7)(ii) of this section, if no such submission is
made.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(D) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) CBI Office at the email address [email protected],
should include clear CBI markings as described in paragraph
(g)(1)(iii)(C) of this section, and should be flagged to the attention
of Lead of 2015 Ozone Transport FIP. If assistance is needed with
submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for
email attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing
service, please email [email protected] to request a file transfer link.
* * * * *
(2) Annual reports and excess emissions reports must be submitted
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the
EPA
[[Page 12729]]
to report data required by Sec. 52.41, Sec. 52.42, Sec. 52.43, Sec.
52.44, Sec. 52.45, or Sec. 52.46.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 52.41 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a):
0
i. In the definition for ``Cap'', removing ``sum each'' and adding in
its place ``sum of each'';
0
ii. In the definition for ``Facility'', removing ``20 states identified
in Sec. 52.40(b)(2)'' and adding in its place ``set of states
identified in Sec. 52.40(c)''; and
0
iii. In the definition for ``Rich burn'', removing ``affected unit
where'' and adding in its place ``affected units where'';
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1) introductory text, paragraph (b)(1)(ii),
and paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
c. In paragraph (d) introductory text, removing ``the CEDRI or'' and
adding in its place ``CEDRI or an'';
0
d. Redesignating the second paragraph (d)(1)(iv) as paragraph
(d)(1)(v);
0
e. In paragraph (d)(4), removing ``an affected units'' and adding in
its place ``an affected unit'';
0
f. Removing paragraph (e)(3)(iii) and redesignating paragraph
(e)(3)(iv) as paragraph (e)(3)(iii);
0
g. In paragraph (e)(5) introductory text, removing ``owner of
operator'' and adding in its place ``owner or operator'';
0
h. Revising paragraph (e)(6) and paragraph (f) introductory text;
0
i. In paragraph (f)(1), removing ``paragraph (e)(2)'' and adding in its
place ``paragraph (e)(3)'';
0
j. In paragraph (f)(2), removing ``paragraph (e)(3)'' and adding in its
place ``paragraph (e)(4)''; and
0
k. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (2), paragraph (g)(3) introductory
text, and paragraph (g)(3)(i).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 52.41 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from
the Pipeline Transportation of Natural Gas Industry?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) For purposes of this section, the owner or operator of an
emergency stationary RICE must operate the RICE according to the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section to
be treated as an emergency stationary RICE. In order for a stationary
RICE to be treated as an emergency RICE under this section, any
operation other than emergency operation, maintenance and testing, and
operation in non-emergency situations for up to 50 hours per year, as
described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii), is prohibited. If you
do not operate the RICE according to the requirements in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) through (iii), the RICE will not be considered an emergency
engine under this section and must meet all requirements for affected
units in this section.
* * * * *
(ii) The owner or operator may operate an emergency stationary RICE
for maintenance checks and readiness testing for a maximum of 100 hours
per calendar year, provided that the tests are recommended by a
Federal, state, or local government agency, the manufacturer, the
vendor, or the insurance company associated with the engine. Any
operation for non-emergency situations as allowed by paragraph
(b)(1)(iii) of this section counts as part of the 100 hours per
calendar year allowed by this paragraph (b)(1)(ii). The owner or
operator may petition the Administrator for approval of additional
hours to be used for maintenance checks and readiness testing, but a
petition is not required if the owner or operator maintains records
confirming that Federal, state, or local standards require maintenance
and testing of emergency RICE beyond 100 hours per calendar year. Any
petition must be submitted via CEDRI or an analogous electronic
submission system provided by the EPA. Any approval of a petition for
additional hours granted by the Administrator under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart ZZZZ, shall constitute approval by the Administrator of the
same petition under this paragraph (b)(1)(ii).
* * * * *
(c) Emissions limitations. If you are the owner or operator of an
affected unit, you must meet the following emissions limitations on a
30-day rolling average basis during each ozone season identified for
the applicable State in Sec. 52.40(c)(2):
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(6) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit that is
only operated during peak periods outside of the ozone season and your
hours of operation during the ozone season are 50 or less, you are not
subject to the testing and monitoring requirements of paragraphs (e)(4)
and (5) of this section as long as you record and report your hours of
operation during the ozone season in accordance with paragraphs (f) and
(g) of this section.
(f) Recordkeeping requirements. If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you shall maintain records of the following
information for each day the affected unit operates during the ozone
season consistent with the requirements of Sec. 52.40(c)(3) and (f):
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you must
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation of
the CEMS to the EPA within 60 days after completing each performance
test required by this section. The results must be submitted following
the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an analogous
electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA to report data
required by this section.
(2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you are
required to submit excess emissions reports to the EPA for any excess
emissions that occurred during the reporting period. Excess emissions
are defined as any calculated 30-day rolling average NOX
emissions rate that exceeds the applicable emissions limit in paragraph
(c) of this section. Excess emissions reports must be submitted
following the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an
analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA to report
data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI must be made
in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions provided in
CEDRI.
(3) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you must
submit an annual report to the EPA by January 30th of each year. Annual
reports must be submitted following the procedures in Sec. 52.40(g)
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the
EPA to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions
provided in CEDRI. The report shall contain the following information:
(i) The name and address of the owner or operator;
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 52.42 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), removing the definition ``Cement plant'';
0
b. Revising paragraph (b) and paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
c. In equation 1 to paragraph (d)(1):
0
i. In the definition for ``P'', removing ``Time'' and adding in its
place ``time''; and
0
ii. In the definition for ``n'', removing ``n = Number'' and adding in
its place ``N = Number'';
0
d. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory text, removing ``2026 ozone
season'' and adding in its place ``start date of the first ozone season
identified for the applicable State in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)'';
[[Page 12730]]
0
e. In paragraph (d)(3)(v), removing ``paragraph (e)'' and adding in its
place ``paragraph (f)''; and
0
f. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text, paragraphs (f)(1) through
(3), and paragraph (g)(2) introductory text.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 52.42 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from
the Cement and Concrete Product Manufacturing Industry?
* * * * *
(b) Applicability. You are subject to the requirements of this
section if you own or operate a new or existing cement kiln that is
located within any of the States listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2), including
Indian country located within the borders of any such State(s), and
emits or has the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of
NOX on or after August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State listed
in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit
in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(ii). Any existing cement kiln
with a potential to emit of 100 tons per year or more of NOX
on the date specified for the unit in the preceding sentence will
continue to be subject to the requirements of this section even if that
unit later becomes subject to a physical or operational limitation that
lowers its potential to emit below 100 tons per year of NOX.
(c) Emissions limitations. If you are the owner or operator of an
affected unit, you must meet the following emissions limitations on a
30-day rolling average basis during each ozone season identified for
the applicable State in Sec. 52.40(c)(2):
* * * * *
(e) Recordkeeping requirements. If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you shall maintain records of the following
information for each day the affected unit operates during the ozone
season consistent with the requirements of Sec. 52.40(c)(3) and (f):
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation of
the CEMS to the EPA within 60 days after the date of completing each
performance test required by this section. The results must be
submitted following the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section.
(2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you are
required to submit excess emissions reports to the EPA for any excess
emissions that occurred during the reporting period. Excess emissions
are defined as any calculated 30-day rolling average NOX
emissions rate that exceeds the applicable emissions limit established
under paragraph (c) of this section. Excess emissions reports must be
submitted following the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions
provided in CEDRI.
(3) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall
submit an annual report to the EPA by January 30th of each year. Annual
reports must be submitted following the procedures in Sec. 52.40(g)
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the
EPA to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions
provided in CEDRI. The report shall include all records required by
paragraph (e) of this section, including records of CEMS data or
operating parameters required by paragraph (d) of this section to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits
under paragraph (c) of this section.
(g) * * *
(2) The owner or operator of an existing affected unit that emits
or has a potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of NOX
as of August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State listed in Sec.
52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a
State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(ii), shall notify the Administrator
that the unit is subject to this section. The notification shall be
submitted in PDF format via CEDRI or an analogous electronic submission
system provided by the EPA not later than December 4, 2023, for a unit
in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [120 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in Sec.
52.40(c)(2)(ii). CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The notification shall provide the following
information:
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 52.43 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) and (d)(1), paragraph (d)(4) introductory
text, and paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (ii);
0
b. In paragraph (d)(4)(iii) introductory text, removing ``via the CEDRI
or analogous'' and adding in its place ``in writing or via an'';
0
c. In paragraph (d)(4)(iii)(B), removing ``in writing, within'' and
adding in its place ``via CEDRI or an analogous electronic submission
system provided by the EPA, within'';
0
d. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iv);
0
e. In paragraph (d)(4)(v), removing ``August 5, 2024, the'' and adding
in its place ``the submission deadline specified for the unit in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the'';
0
f. In paragraph (e)(3) introductory text, removing ``2026 ozone
season'' and adding in its place ``start date of the first ozone season
identified for the applicable State in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)'';
0
g. In paragraph (e)(3)(ii), removing ``a site-specific indicator'' and
adding in its place ``site-specific indicator ranges'';
0
h. In paragraph (e)(3)(iv), removing ``paragraph (f)'' and adding in
its place ``paragraph (g)'';
0
i. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text;
0
j. In paragraph (f)(8), removing ``paragraph (d)'' and adding in its
place ``paragraph (e)''; and
0
k. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) and paragraph (h)(2)
introductory text.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 52.43 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from
the Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing Industry?
* * * * *
(b) Applicability. The requirements of this section apply to each
new or existing reheat furnace at an iron and steel mill or ferroalloy
manufacturing facility that is located within any of the States listed
in Sec. 52.40(c)(2), including Indian country located within the
borders of any such State(s), does not have low-NOX burners
installed, and directly emits or has the potential to emit 100 tons per
year or more of NOX on or after August 4, 2023, for a unit
in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL
RULE], for a unit in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(ii). Any
existing reheat furnace without low-NOX burners installed
and with a potential to emit of 100 tons per year or more of
NOX on the date specified for the unit in the preceding
sentence will continue to be subject to the requirements of this
section even if that unit later installs low-NOX burners or
becomes subject to a physical or operational limitation that lowers its
potential to emit below 100 tons per year of NOX.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) The owner or operator of each affected unit must submit a work
plan for each affected unit by August 5, 2024,
[[Page 12731]]
for a unit in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [ONE YEAR
AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in
Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(ii). The work plan must be submitted via CEDRI or an
analogous electronic submission system provided by the EPA. Each work
plan must include a description of the affected unit and rated
production and energy capacities, identification of the low-
NOX burner or alternative low NOX technology
selected, and the phased construction timeframe by which you will
design, install, and consistently operate the device. Each work plan
shall also include, where applicable, performance test results obtained
no more than five years before August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State
listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for
a unit in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(ii), to be used as
baseline emissions testing data providing the basis for required
emissions reductions. If no such data exist, then the owner or operator
must perform pre-installation testing as described in paragraph (e)(3)
of this section.
* * * * *
(4) The Administrator will act as follows with respect to each
submitted work plan:
(i) The Administrator will provide notification in writing or via
an electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or
operator of an affected unit if the submitted work plan is complete,
that is, whether the submission contains sufficient information to make
a determination, within 60 calendar days after receipt of the original
work plan and within 60 calendar days after receipt of any
supplementary information.
(ii) The Administrator will provide notification in writing or via
an electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the owner or
operator of a decision to approve or intention to disapprove the work
plan within 60 calendar days after providing written notification
pursuant to paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section that the submitted work
plan is complete. Any decision to approve a work plan will be made
publicly available.
* * * * *
(iv) The Administrator's final decision to disapprove a work plan
will be provided in writing or via an electronic submission system
provided by the EPA, will be made publicly available, and will set
forth the specific grounds on which the disapproval is based. The final
decision will be made within 60 calendar days after presentation of
additional information or argument (if the submitted work plan is
complete), or within 60 calendar days after the deadline for the
submission of additional information or argument under paragraph
(d)(4)(iii)(B) of this section, if no such submission is made.
* * * * *
(f) Recordkeeping requirements. If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you shall maintain records of the following
information for each day the affected unit operates during the ozone
season consistent with the requirements of Sec. 52.40(c)(3) and (f):
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall
submit a final report via CEDRI or an analogous electronic submission
system provided by the EPA, by no later than one month before the start
date of the first ozone season identified for the applicable State in
Sec. 52.40(c)(2), certifying that installation of each selected
control device has been completed. You shall include in the report the
dates of final construction and relevant performance testing, where
applicable, demonstrating compliance with the selected emission limits
pursuant to paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you must
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation of
the CEMS to the EPA within 60 days after the date of completing each
performance test required by this section. The results must be
submitted following the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section.
(3) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you are
required to submit excess emissions reports to the EPA for any excess
emissions that occurred during the reporting period. Excess emissions
are defined as any calculated 30-day rolling average NOX
emissions rate that exceeds the applicable emissions limit established
under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. Excess emissions reports
must be submitted following the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g)
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the
EPA to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions
provided in CEDRI.
(4) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall
submit an annual report to the EPA by January 30th of each year. Annual
reports must be submitted following the procedures in Sec. 52.40(g)
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the
EPA to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions
provided in CEDRI. The report shall include all records required by
paragraph (f) of this section, including records of CEMS data or
operating parameters required by paragraph (e) of this section to
demonstrate compliance with the applicable emissions limits established
under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(h) * * *
(2) The owner or operator of an existing affected unit that does
not have low-NOX burners installed and that emits or has a
potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of NOX as of
August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(i),
or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in
Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(ii), shall notify the Administrator that the unit is
subject to this section. The notification shall be submitted in PDF
format via CEDRI or an analogous electronic submission system provided
by the EPA not later than December 4, 2023, for a unit in a State
listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [120 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(ii).
CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The
notification shall provide the following information:
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 52.44 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a):
0
i. In the definition for ``Affected units'', removing ``Affected units
means'' and adding ``Affected unit means''; and
0
ii. Revising the definition ``Wool fiberglass'';
0
b. Revising paragraph (b) and paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
c. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory text and paragraph (e)(1)
introductory text, removing ``the CEDRI or'' and adding in its place
``CEDRI or an'';
0
d. In paragraph (g)(3) introductory text, removing ``2026 ozone
season'' and adding in its place ``start date of the first ozone season
identified for the applicable State in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)'';
0
e. In paragraph (g)(3)(ii), removing ``a'';
0
f. In paragraph (g)(3)(iv), removing ``paragraph (h)'' and adding in
its place ``paragraph (i)'';
0
g. Revising paragraph (h)(1) introductory text;
[[Page 12732]]
0
h. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(1)(vii)(D), (h)(1)(viii), and
(h)(1)(ix) as paragraphs (h)(1)(viii), (h)(1)(ix), and (h)(1)(x),
respectively;
0
i. In paragraph (h)(2), adding a second sentence;
0
j. In paragraph (h)(3), adding a third sentence; and
0
k. Revising paragraphs (i)(1) through (3) and paragraph (j)(2)
introductory text.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.44 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from
the Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing Industry?
(a) * * *
Wool fiberglass means fibrous glass of random texture, including
acoustical board and tile (mineral wool), fiberglass insulation, glass
wool, insulation (rock wool, fiberglass, slag, and silica minerals),
and mineral wool roofing mats.
(b) Applicability. You are subject to the requirements under this
section if you own or operate a new or existing glass manufacturing
furnace that is located within any of the States listed in Sec.
52.40(c)(2), including Indian country located within the borders of any
such State(s), and directly emits or has the potential to emit 100 tons
per year or more of NOX on or after August 4, 2023, for a
unit in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(ii). Any
existing glass manufacturing furnace with a potential to emit of 100
tons per year or more of NOX on the date specified for the
unit in the preceding sentence will continue to be subject to the
requirements of this section even if that unit later becomes subject to
a physical or operational limitation that lowers its potential to emit
below 100 tons per year of NOX.
(c) Emissions limitations. If you are the owner or operator of an
affected unit, you must meet the emissions limitations in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (2) of this section on a 30-day rolling average basis during
each ozone season identified for the applicable State in Sec.
52.40(c)(2), provided that such emissions limitations shall not apply
to the unit during startup, shutdown, and/or idling in any ozone season
for which the unit complies with the startup requirements in paragraph
(d) of this section, the shutdown requirements in paragraph (e) of this
section, and/or the idling requirements in paragraph (f) of this
section, respectively.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall
maintain records of the following information for each day the affected
unit operates during the ozone season consistent with the requirements
of Sec. 52.40(c)(3) and (f):
* * * * *
(2) * * * The records shall be maintained consistent with the
requirements of Sec. 52.40(c)(3) and (f).
(3) * * * The records shall be maintained consistent with the
requirements of Sec. 52.40(c)(3) and (f).
(i) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you must
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation of
the CEMS to the EPA within 60 days after the date of completing each
performance test required by this section. The results must be
submitted following the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section.
(2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you are
required to submit excess emissions reports to the EPA for any excess
emissions that occurred during the reporting period. Excess emissions
are defined as any calculated 30-day rolling average NOX
emissions rate that exceeds the applicable emissions limit in paragraph
(c) of this section. Excess emissions reports must be submitted
following the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an
analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA to report
data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI must be made
in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions provided in
CEDRI.
(3) If you own or operate an affected unit, you shall submit an
annual report to the EPA by January 30th of each year. Annual reports
must be submitted following the procedures in Sec. 52.40(g) via CEDRI
or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA to
report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI must
be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions
provided in CEDRI. The report shall include all records required by
paragraph (h) of this section, including records of CEMS data or
operating parameters required by paragraph (g) of this section to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits
under paragraph (c) of this section.
(j) * * *
(2) The owner or operator of an existing affected unit that emits
or has a potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of NOX
as of August 4, 2023, for a unit in a State listed in Sec.
52.40(c)(2)(i), or [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a
State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(ii), shall notify the Administrator
that the unit is subject to this section. The notification shall be
submitted in PDF format via CEDRI or an analogous electronic submission
system provided by the EPA not later than December 4, 2023, for a unit
in a State listed in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)(i), or [120 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], for a unit in a State listed in Sec.
52.40(c)(2)(ii). CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The notification shall provide the following
information:
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec. 52.45 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. In paragraph (a), in the definition for ``Maximum heat input
capacity'', removing the second ``means'' before ``the ability'';
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
d. In paragraph (b)(2) introductory text, removing ``paragraph (f)(2)''
and adding in its place ``paragraphs (e)(2) and (f)(3)'';
0
e. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(i) and paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
f. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory text, removing ``May 1, 2026'' and
adding in its place ``the start date of the first ozone season
identified for the applicable State in Sec. 52.40(c)(2)'';
0
g. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), removing ``emission rate'' and adding in its
place ``emissions rate'';
0
h. In paragraph (d)(2) introductory text, removing ``mmBTU/hr'' and
adding in its place ``mmBtu/hr'';
0
i. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(iii);
0
j. In paragraph (d)(2)(v), removing ``coal and span value'' and adding
in its place ``coal and a span value'';
0
k. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(vii) and paragraph (d)(3) introductory
text;
0
l. In paragraph (d)(3)(ii), removing ``affected units operates'' and
adding in its place ``affected unit operates'';
0
m. In paragraphs (d)(3)(iii)(A) and (B), removing ``emission rates''
and adding in its place ``emissions rates'';
0
n. Adding paragraph (d)(3)(iv);
0
o. Removing paragraph (d)(4);
0
p. Revising paragraph (e)(1) introductory text, paragraph (e)(2)
introductory text, and paragraphs (e)(2)(v) and (f)(1) through (3); and
0
q. Removing paragraph (f)(4).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
[[Page 12733]]
Sec. 52.45 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from
the Basic Chemical Manufacturing, Petroleum and Coal Products
Manufacturing, Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills, Metal Ore Mining, and
Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing Industries?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) The requirements of this section apply to each new or existing
boiler with a design capacity of 100 mmBtu/hr or greater that received
90% or more of its heat input from coal, residual oil, distillate oil,
natural gas, or combinations of these fuels in the previous ozone
season; is located at sources that are within the Basic Chemical
Manufacturing industry, the Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing
industry, the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills industry, the Metal Ore
Mining industry, and the Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy
Manufacturing industry; and is located within any of the States listed
in Sec. 52.40(c)(2), including Indian country located within the
borders of any such State(s). The requirements of this section do not
apply to an emissions unit that meets the requirements for a low-use
exemption as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit that
exceeds the 10% per year hour of operation over three years criterion
or the 20% hours of operation per year criterion, you can no longer
comply via the low-use exemption provisions and must meet the
applicable emissions limits and other applicable provisions as soon as
possible but not later than one year from the date eligibility as a
low-use boiler was negated by exceedance of the low-use boiler
criteria.
* * * * *
(c) Emissions limitations. If you are the owner or operator of an
affected unit, you must meet the following emissions limitations on a
30-day rolling average basis during each ozone season identified for
the applicable State in Sec. 52.40(c)(2):
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) The 1-hour average NOX emissions rates measured by
the CEMS shall be expressed in terms of lbs/mmBtu heat input and shall
be used to calculate the average emissions rates under paragraph (c) of
this section.
* * * * *
(vii) You may delay installing a CEMS for NOX until
after the initial performance test has been conducted. If you
demonstrate during the performance test that emissions of
NOX are less than 70 percent of the applicable emissions
limit in paragraph (c) of this section, you are not required to install
a CEMS for measuring NOX. If you demonstrate your affected
unit emits less than 70 percent of the applicable emissions limit and
choose to not install a CEMS, you must submit a request via CEDRI or an
analogous electronic submission system provided by the EPA to the
Administrator that documents the results of the initial performance
test and includes an alternative monitoring procedure that will be used
to track compliance with the applicable NOX emissions
limit(s) in paragraph (c) of this section. The Administrator may
consider the request and, following public notice and comment, may
approve the alternative monitoring procedure with or without revision,
or disapprove the request. If the Administrator approves the request
for the alternative monitoring procedure, you must request that the
relevant permitting agency incorporate the monitoring procedure into
the facility's title V permit. Upon receipt of a disapproved request,
you will have one year to install a CEMS.
(3) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit with a
heat input capacity less than 250 mmBtu/hr, you must monitor
NOX emissions via the requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of
this section or you must monitor NOX emissions by conducting
an annual test in conjunction with the implementation of a monitoring
plan meeting the following requirements:
* * * * *
(iv) You shall submit the monitoring plan to the EPA via CEDRI or
an analogous electronic submission system provided by the EPA, and
request that the relevant permitting agency incorporate the monitoring
plan into the facility's title V permit.
(e) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit which is
not a low-use boiler, you shall maintain records of the following
information for each day the affected unit operates during the ozone
season consistent with the requirements of Sec. 52.40(c)(3) and (f):
* * * * *
(2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit complying
as a low-use boiler, you must maintain the following records for each
operating day of the calendar year consistent with the requirements of
Sec. 52.40(f):
* * * * *
(v) The annual hours of operation for each of the prior 3 years,
and the 3-year average hours of operation.
(f) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you must
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation of
the CEMS to the EPA within 60 days after the date of completing each
performance test required by this section. The results must be
submitted following the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section.
(2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you are
required to submit excess emissions reports to the EPA for any excess
emissions that occurred during the reporting period. Excess emissions
are defined as any calculated 30-day rolling average NOX
emissions rate, as determined under paragraph (e)(1)(iii) of this
section, that exceeds the applicable emissions limit in paragraph (c)
of this section. Excess emissions reports must be submitted following
the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an analogous
electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA to report data
required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI must be made in
accordance with the appropriate submission instructions provided in
CEDRI.
(3) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall
submit an annual report to the EPA by January 30th of each year. Annual
reports must be submitted following the procedures in Sec. 52.40(g)
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the
EPA to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions
provided in CEDRI. The report shall include all records required by
paragraph (e) of this section, including records of CEMS data or
operating parameters required by paragraph (d) of this section to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emissions limits
under paragraph (c) of this section.
0
10. Amend Sec. 52.46 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a):
0
i. Removing the definitions ``mass burn refractory waste combustor'',
``mass burn rotary waterwall municipal waste combustor'', and ``mass
burn waterwall municipal waste combustor'';
0
ii. Adding the definition ``Municipal solid waste or MSW'' in
alphabetical order; and
[[Page 12734]]
0
iii. In the definition for ``Municipal waste combustor, MWC, or
municipal waste combustor unit'', paragraph (i), removing ``Means any''
and adding in its place ``Any'';
0
b. In paragraph (b), removing ``and'';
0
c. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
d. In paragraphs (c)(1) and (2), removing ``at 7 percent oxygen'';
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (d)(1);
0
f. Revising paragraph (d)(2);
0
g. In paragraph (d)(5), removing ``owner and operator'' and adding in
its place ``owner or operator'';
0
h. In paragraph (e)(1) introductory text, removing ``NOX
are'' and adding in its palace ``NOX emissions are'';
0
i. Revising paragraph (e)(1)(vi) introductory text and paragraphs
(e)(1)(vi)(A), (e)(2)(vi)(B), and (e)(2)(vii);
0
j. In paragraph (e)(2)(viii), removing ``paragraph (e)(2)(iv)'' and
adding in its place ``paragraph (e)(2)(vi)'';
0
k. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(3);
0
l. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text and paragraph (f)(3);
0
m. In paragraph (f)(4), removing ``occurrence that'' and adding in its
place ``occurrence where'';
0
n. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (2); and
0
o. Adding paragraph (g)(3).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 52.46 What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
Plans (FIPs) relating to ozone season emissions of nitrogen oxides from
Municipal Waste Combustors?
(a) * * *
Municipal solid waste or MSW means ``municipal solid waste or
municipal-type solid waste or MSW'' as defined in 40 CFR 60.51b.
* * * * *
(c) Emissions limitations. If you are the owner or operator of an
affected unit, you must meet the following emissions limitations at all
times on a 24-hour block average basis and a 30-day rolling average
basis during each ozone season identified for the applicable State in
Sec. 52.40(c)(2), using NOX measurements corrected to 7
percent oxygen except as otherwise provided in paragraph (e)(2)(vi)(B)
of this section:
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Duration of startup and shutdown periods is limited to 3 hours
per occurrence.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) If you select carbon dioxide for use in diluent corrections,
you shall follow the requirements of 40 CFR 60.58b(b)(6) to establish
the relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide levels:
(A) This relationship shall be established during the initial
performance test and may be reestablished during performance compliance
tests; and
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) * * *
(B) Each NOX 1-hour arithmetic average shall be
corrected to 7 percent oxygen on an hourly basis using the 1-hour
arithmetic average of the oxygen (or carbon dioxide) CEMS data, except
that NOX data for an hour identified as falling within a
period of startup or shutdown in accordance with paragraphs (d)(2)
through (4) of this section can reflect NOX as measured at
stack oxygen content without such correction.
(vii) The 1-hour arithmetic averages shall be expressed in parts
per million by volume (dry basis) and shall be used to calculate the
24-hour daily arithmetic average concentrations. The 1-hour arithmetic
averages shall be calculated using the data points required under 40
CFR 60.13(e)(2).
* * * * *
(f) Recordkeeping requirements. If you are the owner or operator of
an affected unit, you shall maintain records of the following
information, as applicable, for each day the affected unit operates
during the ozone season consistent with the requirements of Sec.
52.40(c)(3) and (f):
* * * * *
(3) Identification of the calendar dates and times (hours) for
which valid hourly NOX emissions data have not been
obtained, including reasons for not obtaining the data and a
description of corrective actions taken.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you must
submit the results of the performance test or performance evaluation of
the CEMS to the EPA within 60 days after the date of completing each
performance test required by this section. The results must be
submitted following the procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via
CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA
to report data required by this section.
(2) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you are
required to submit excess emissions reports to the EPA for any excess
emissions that occurred during the reporting period. Excess emissions
are defined as any calculated 24-hour block average NOX
emissions rate or calculated 30-day rolling average NOX
emissions rate, as determined under paragraph (e)(2) of this section,
that exceeds the respective emissions limit in paragraph (c) of this
section. Excess emissions reports must be submitted following the
procedures specified in Sec. 52.40(g) via CEDRI or an analogous
electronic reporting approach provided by the EPA to report data
required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI must be made in
accordance with the appropriate submission instructions provided in
CEDRI.
(3) If you are the owner or operator of an affected unit, you shall
submit an annual report to the EPA by January 30th of each year. Annual
reports must be submitted following the procedures in Sec. 52.40(g)
via CEDRI or an analogous electronic reporting approach provided by the
EPA to report data required by this section. Submissions made via CEDRI
must be made in accordance with the appropriate submission instructions
provided in CEDRI. The report shall include all information required by
paragraph (f) of this section, including records of CEMS data required
by paragraph (e) of this section to demonstrate compliance with the
applicable emissions limits under paragraph (c) of this section.
Subpart D--Arizona
0
11. Add Sec. 52.154 to subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 52.154 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?
(a)(1) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located
in the State of Arizona and Indian country within the borders of the
State and for which requirements are set forth under the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program in subpart GGGGG of
part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements with regard
to emissions occurring in 2025 and each subsequent year. The obligation
to comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units in
the State and areas of Indian country within the borders of the State
subject to the State's SIP authority will be eliminated by the
promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to
Arizona's State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP's
deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) under Sec. 52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii) for those sources and
units, except to the extent
[[Page 12735]]
the Administrator's approval is partial or conditional. The obligation
to comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units
located in areas of Indian country within the borders of the State not
subject to the State's SIP authority will not be eliminated by the
promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to
Arizona's SIP.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, if, at the time of the approval of Arizona's SIP revision
described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the Administrator has
already started recording any allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 allowances under subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this
chapter to units in the State and areas of Indian country within the
borders of the State subject to the State's SIP authority for a control
period in any year, the provisions of subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this
chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation and
recordation of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances to
such units for each such control period shall continue to apply, unless
provided otherwise by such approval of the State's SIP revision.
(b) The owner and operator of each source located in the State of
Arizona and Indian country within the borders of the State and for
which requirements are set forth in Sec. 52.40 and Sec. 52.41, Sec.
52.42, Sec. 52.43, Sec. 52.44, Sec. 52.45, or Sec. 52.46 must
comply with such requirements with regard to emissions occurring in
2027 and each subsequent year.
Subpart Q--Iowa
0
12. Amend Sec. 52.840 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(2):
0
i. Removing ``2017 and each subsequent year.'' and adding in its place
``2017 through 2024.''; and
0
ii. Removing the second and third sentences;
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(3); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (5).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.840 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in
the State of Iowa and Indian country within the borders of the State
and for which requirements are set forth under the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program in subpart GGGGG of part 97 of
this chapter must comply with such requirements with regard to
emissions occurring in 2025 and each subsequent year. The obligation to
comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units in the
State and areas of Indian country within the borders of the State
subject to the State's SIP authority will be eliminated by the
promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to
Iowa's State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP's
deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) under Sec. 52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii), except to the extent the
Administrator's approval is partial or conditional. The obligation to
comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units located
in areas of Indian country within the borders of the State not subject
to the State's SIP authority will not be eliminated by the promulgation
of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Iowa's SIP.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, if, at the time of the approval of Iowa's SIP revision
described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Administrator has
already started recording any allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 allowances under subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this
chapter to units in the State and areas of Indian country within the
borders of the State subject to the State's SIP authority for a control
period in any year, the provisions of subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this
chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation and
recordation of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances to
such units for each such control period shall continue to apply, unless
provided otherwise by such approval of the State's SIP revision.
(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, after 2024 the provisions of Sec. 97.826(c) of this chapter
(concerning the transfer of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
allowances between certain accounts under common control) and the
provisions of Sec. 97.826(f) of this chapter (concerning the
conversion of amounts of unused CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group
2 allowances allocated for control periods before 2025 to different
amounts of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances) shall
continue to apply.
Subpart R--Kansas
0
13. Amend Sec. 52.882 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(1):
0
i. Removing ``2017 and each subsequent year.'' and adding in its place
``2017 through 2024.''; and
0
ii. Removing the second and third sentences;
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(2); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(3) and (4).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.882 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in
the State of Kansas and Indian country within the borders of the State
and for which requirements are set forth under the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program in subpart GGGGG of part 97 of
this chapter must comply with such requirements with regard to
emissions occurring in 2025 and each subsequent year. The obligation to
comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units in the
State and areas of Indian country within the borders of the State
subject to the State's SIP authority will be eliminated by the
promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to
Kansas' State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP's
deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) under Sec. 52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii), except to the extent the
Administrator's approval is partial or conditional. The obligation to
comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units located
in areas of Indian country within the borders of the State not subject
to the State's SIP authority will not be eliminated by the promulgation
of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to Kansas' SIP.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, if, at the time of the approval of Kansas' SIP revision
described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the Administrator has
already started recording any allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 allowances under subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this
chapter to units in the State and areas of Indian country within the
borders of the State subject to the State's SIP authority for a control
period in any year, the provisions of subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this
chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation and
recordation of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances to
such units for each such control period shall continue to apply, unless
provided otherwise by such approval of the State's SIP revision.
[[Page 12736]]
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) of this
section, after 2024 the provisions of Sec. 97.826(c) of this chapter
(concerning the transfer of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
allowances between certain accounts under common control) and the
provisions of Sec. 97.826(f) of this chapter (concerning the
conversion of amounts of unused CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group
2 allowances allocated for control periods before 2025 to different
amounts of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances) shall
continue to apply.
Subpart GG--New Mexico
0
14. Add Sec. 52.1641 to subpart GG to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1641 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?
(a) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in
the State of New Mexico and Indian country within the borders of the
State and for which requirements are set forth under the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program in subpart GGGGG of
part 97 of this chapter must comply with such requirements with regard
to emissions occurring in 2025 and each subsequent year. The obligation
to comply with such requirements with regard to sources and units in
the State and areas of Indian country within the borders of the State
subject to the State's SIP authority will be eliminated by the
promulgation of an approval by the Administrator of a revision to New
Mexico's State Implementation Plan (SIP) as correcting the SIP's
deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) under Sec. 52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii) for those sources and
units, except to the extent the Administrator's approval is partial or
conditional. The obligation to comply with such requirements with
regard to sources and units located in areas of Indian country within
the borders of the State not subject to the State's SIP authority will
not be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the
Administrator of a revision to New Mexico SIP.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this
section, if, at the time of the approval of New Mexico's SIP revision
described in paragraph (a) of this section, the Administrator has
already started recording any allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 allowances under subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this
chapter to units in the State and areas of Indian country within the
borders of the State subject to the State's SIP authority for a control
period in any year, the provisions of subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this
chapter authorizing the Administrator to complete the allocation and
recordation of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances to
such units for each such control period shall continue to apply, unless
provided otherwise by such approval of the State's SIP revision.
Subpart RR--Tennessee
0
15. Amend Sec. 52.2240 by:
0
a. In paragraph (e)(2):
0
i. Removing ``2017 and each subsequent year.'' and adding in its place
``2017 through 2024.''; and
0
ii. Removing the second sentence;
0
b. Revising paragraph (e)(3); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (e)(4) and (5).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2240 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of nitrogen oxides?
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) The owner and operator of each source and each unit located in
the State of Tennessee and for which requirements are set forth under
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program in
subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this chapter must comply with such
requirements with regard to emissions occurring in 2025 and each
subsequent year. The obligation to comply with such requirements will
be eliminated by the promulgation of an approval by the Administrator
of a revision to Tennessee's State Implementation Plan (SIP) as
correcting the SIP's deficiency that is the basis for the CSAPR Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) under Sec. 52.38(b)(1) and (b)(2)(iii),
except to the extent the Administrator's approval is partial or
conditional.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (e)(3) of this
section, if, at the time of the approval of Tennessee's SIP revision
described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, the Administrator has
already started recording any allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Group 3 allowances under subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this
chapter to units in the State for a control period in any year, the
provisions of subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this chapter authorizing the
Administrator to complete the allocation and recordation of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances to such units for each
such control period shall continue to apply, unless provided otherwise
by such approval of the State's SIP revision.
(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (e)(2) of this
section, after 2024 the provisions of Sec. 97.826(c) of this chapter
(concerning the transfer of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
allowances between certain accounts under common control) and the
provisions of Sec. 97.826(f) of this chapter (concerning the
conversion of amounts of unused CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group
2 allowances allocated for control periods before 2025 to different
amounts of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances) shall
continue to apply.
PART 97--FEDERAL NOX BUDGET TRADING PROGRAM, CAIR NOX AND SO2
TRADING PROGRAMS, CSAPR NOX AND SO2 TRADING PROGRAMS, AND TEXAS SO2
TRADING PROGRAM
0
16. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7426, 7491, 7601, and
7651, et seq.
Subpart BBBBB--CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1 Trading Program
Sec. 97.502 [Amended]
0
17. Amend Sec. 97.502 in the definition for ``CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Group 3 allowance'' by removing ``Sec. 97.826(d) or (e),
or'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 97.826(d), (e), or (f), or''.
0
18. Amend Sec. 97.526 by adding paragraphs (d)(2)(iv) and (e)(4) to
read as follows:
Sec. 97.526 Banking and conversion.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) After the Administrator has carried out the procedures set
forth in paragraph (d)(1) of this section and Sec. 97.826(f)(1), upon
any determination that would otherwise result in the initial
recordation of a given number of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 1 allowances in the compliance account for a source in a State
listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter (and Indian country
within the borders of such a State), the Administrator will not record
such CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1 allowances but instead
will allocate and record in such account an amount of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances for the control period
in 2023 computed as the quotient, rounded up to the nearest allowance,
of such given number of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1
allowances divided by the conversion factor determined under paragraph
(d)(1)(ii) of this section and further divided by the conversion factor
determined under Sec. 97.826(f)(1)(ii).
(e) * * *
[[Page 12737]]
(4) After the Administrator has carried out the procedures set
forth in paragraph (d)(1) of this section and Sec. 97.826(f)(1), the
owner or operator of a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1 source
in a State listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(ii)(A) of this chapter (and
Indian country within the borders of such a State) may satisfy a
requirement to hold a given number of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 1 allowances for the control period in 2015 or 2016 by holding
instead, in a general account established for this sole purpose, an
amount of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances for the
control period in 2025 (or any later control period for which the
allowance transfer deadline defined in Sec. 97.1002 has passed)
computed as the quotient, rounded up to the nearest allowance, of such
given number of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 1 allowances
divided by the conversion factor determined under paragraph (d)(1)(ii)
of this section and further divided by the conversion factor determined
under Sec. 97.826(f)(1)(ii).
Subpart EEEEE--CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program
Sec. 97.802 [Amended]
0
19. Amend Sec. 97.802 by:
0
a. In the definition for ``Allocate or allocation'', removing
``Sec. Sec. 97.526(d), 97.826(d), and 97.1026(e), and'' and adding in
its place ``Sec. Sec. 97.526 and 97.1026, and'';
0
b. In the definition for ``Common designated representative's assurance
level'', paragraph (2), removing ``Sec. 97.526(d), Sec. 97.826(d), or
Sec. 97.1026(e).'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 97.526, Sec.
97.826, or Sec. 97.1026.''; and
0
c. In the definition for ``CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowance'', removing ``Sec. 97.826(d) or (e), or'' and adding in its
place ``Sec. 97.826(d), (e), or (f), or''.
Sec. 97.810 [Amended]
0
20. Amend Sec. 97.810 in paragraphs (a)(6)(i) through (iii), (a)(7)(i)
through (iii), (a)(19)(i) and (ii), and (b)(6), (7), and (19) by
removing ``and thereafter'' and adding in its place ``through 2024''.
Sec. 97.811 [Amended]
0
21. Amend Sec. 97.811(d) heading by adding ``Original'' before ``Group
2 allowances''.
Sec. 97.824 [Amended]
0
22. Amend Sec. 97.824(c)(2)(ii) by removing ``Sec. 97.526(d), Sec.
97.826(d), or Sec. 97.1026(e), in'' and adding in its place ``Sec.
97.526, Sec. 97.826, or Sec. 97.1026, in''.
0
23. Amend Sec. 97.826 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(B);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (g) and adding a new
paragraph (f);
0
c. In newly redesignated paragraph (g) introductory text, removing
``this paragraph (f)'' and adding in its place ``this paragraph (g)'';
0
d. In newly redesignated paragraph (g)(1)(i), removing ``paragraph
(f)(1)(ii)'' and adding in its place ``paragraph (g)(1)(ii)''; and
0
e. Adding paragraph (g)(3).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 97.826 Banking and conversion.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) The product of the sum of the trading budgets for the control
period in 2024 under Sec. 97.1010(a)(1)(i) for all States listed in
Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(B) and (C) of this chapter multiplied by 0.21
and further multiplied by a fraction whose numerator is the number of
days from August 4, 2023, through September 30, 2023, inclusive, and
whose denominator is 153.
* * * * *
(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subpart, part 52 of
this chapter, or any SIP revision approved under Sec. 52.38(b)(8) or
(9) of this chapter:
(1) As soon as practicable on or after [45 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE
DATE OF FINAL RULE], the Administrator will temporarily suspend
acceptance of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 allowance
transfers submitted under Sec. 97.822 and, before resuming acceptance
of such transfers, will take the following actions with regard to every
compliance account for a CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2
source in a State listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter
(and Indian country within the borders of such a State):
(i) The Administrator will deduct all CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Original Group 2 allowances allocated for the control periods in
2017 through 2024 from each such account.
(ii) The Administrator will determine a conversion factor equal to
the greater of 1.0000 or the quotient, expressed to four decimal
places, of--
(A) The sum of all CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Original Group
2 allowances deducted from all such accounts under paragraph (e)(1)(i)
of this section; divided by
(B) The product of the sum of the preset trading budgets for the
control period in 2025 under Sec. 97.1010(a)(2)(i) for all States
listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter multiplied by 0.21.
(iii) The Administrator will allocate and record in each such
account an amount of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances for the control period in 2025 computed as the quotient,
rounded up to the nearest allowance, of the number of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Original Group 2 allowances deducted from
such account under paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section divided by the
conversion factor determined under paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this
section.
(2) After the Administrator has carried out the procedures set
forth in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, upon any determination that
would otherwise result in the initial recordation of a given number of
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Original Group 2 allowances in the
compliance account for a source in a State listed in Sec.
52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter (and Indian country within the
borders of such a State), the Administrator will not record such CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Original Group 2 allowances but instead
will allocate and record in such account an amount of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances for the control period
in 2025 computed as the quotient, rounded up to the nearest allowance,
of such given number of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Original
Group 2 allowances divided by the conversion factor determined under
paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section.
(g) * * *
(3) After the Administrator has carried out the procedures set
forth in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the owner or operator of a
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 source in a State listed in
Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(ii)(A) of this chapter (and Indian country within the
borders of such a State) may satisfy a requirement to hold a given
number of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Original Group 2 allowances
for a control period in 2017 through 2024 by holding instead, in a
general account established for this sole purpose, an amount of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances for the control period
in 2025 (or any later control period for which the allowance transfer
deadline defined in Sec. 97.1002 has passed) computed as the quotient,
rounded up to the nearest allowance, of such given number of CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Original Group 2 allowances divided by the
conversion factor determined under paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this
section.
Subpart GGGGG--CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Program
Sec. 97.1002 [Amended]
0
24. Amend Sec. 97.1002 by:
[[Page 12738]]
0
a. In the definition for ``Allocate or allocation'', removing
``Sec. Sec. 97.526(d) and 97.826(d) and (e), and'' and adding in its
place ``Sec. Sec. 97.526 and 97.826, and'';
0
b. In the definition for ``Common designated representative's assurance
level'', paragraph (2), removing ``Sec. 97.526(d) or Sec. 97.826(d)
or (e).'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 97.526 or Sec. 97.826.'';
and
0
c. In the definition for ``CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowance'', removing ``Sec. 97.826(d) or (e), or'' and adding in its
place ``Sec. 97.826(d), (e), or (f), or''.
0
25. Amend Sec. 97.1006 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(i)(B);
0
b. In paragraph (c)(3)(i) introductory text, removing ``paragraph
(c)(3)(i)(A), (B), or (C)'' and adding in its place ``paragraphs
(c)(3)(i)(A) through (D)'';
0
c. In paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A), removing the semicolon and adding in its
place a period.
0
d. In paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B), removing ``; or'' and adding in its place
a period.
0
e. Adding paragraph (c)(3)(i)(D); and
0
f. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(ii).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 97.1006 Standard requirements.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Two times the sum, for all CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 units at the source, of any excess over 50 tons of the sum for
such a unit, for all calendar days of the control period, of any
NOX emissions on any calendar day of the control period
exceeding the NOX emissions that would have occurred on that
calendar day if the unit had combusted the same daily heat input and
emitted at any backstop daily NOX emissions rate applicable
to the unit for that control period.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) May 1, 2025, for a unit in a State (and Indian country within
the borders of such State) listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this
chapter.
(ii) A CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 unit shall be
subject to the requirements under paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (iv) of
this section for the control period starting on the later of May 1,
2024, or the deadline applicable to the unit under paragraph (c)(3)(i)
of this section and for each control period thereafter.
* * * * *
0
26. Amend Sec. 97.1010 by:
0
a. In table 1 to paragraph (a)(1)(i) and table 2 to paragraph
(a)(2)(i), adding the entries ``Arizona'', ``Iowa'', ``Kansas'', ``New
Mexico'', and ``Tennessee'' in alphabetical order;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(B)(1) and (a)(4)(iii)(A);
0
c. In paragraph (a)(4)(iii)(B), adding ``applicable'' before ``document
referenced'';
0
d. Revising paragraphs (c)(2)(iii) and (iv); and
0
e. In table 6 to paragraph (e)(3)(i), adding the entries ``Arizona'',
``Iowa'', ``Kansas'', ``New Mexico'', and ``Tennessee'' in alphabetical
order.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 97.1010 State NOX Ozone Season Group 3 trading budgets, set-
asides, and variability limits.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)(i)--State NOX Ozone Season Group 3 Trading Budgets by Control Period, 2021-2025
[Tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portion of 2023 Portion of 2023
control period control period on
State 2021 2022 before August 4, and after August 4, 2024 2025
2023, before 2023, before
prorating prorating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Arizona..................................................... .......... .......... .................... .................... .......... 8,195
* * * * * * *
Iowa........................................................ .......... .......... .................... .................... .......... 9,752
Kansas...................................................... .......... .......... .................... .................... .......... 4,763
* * * * * * *
New Mexico.................................................. .......... .......... .................... .................... .......... 2,211
* * * * * * *
Tennessee................................................... .......... .......... .................... .................... .......... 3,983
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
Table 2 to Paragraph (a)(2)(i)--Preset Trading Budgets by Control Period, 2026-2029
[Tons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 2026 2027 2028 2029
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Arizona......................................... 5,814 4,913 3,949 3,949
[[Page 12739]]
* * * * * * *
Iowa............................................ 9,713 9,713 9,713 9,077
Kansas.......................................... 4,763 4,763 4,763 4,763
* * * * * * *
New Mexico...................................... 2,008 2,008 2,008 2,008
* * * * * * *
Tennessee....................................... 3,983 2,666 2,130 1,198
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) * * *
(1) The sum for all units in the State meeting the criterion under
paragraph (a)(4)(i)(A) of this section, without regard to whether such
units also meet the criteria under paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(B) and (C) of
this section, of the total heat input amounts reported in accordance
with part 75 of this chapter for the historical control periods in the
years two, three, and four years before the year of the control period
for which the dynamic trading budget is being calculated, provided that
for the historical control periods in 2022 and 2023, the total reported
heat input amounts for Nevada and Utah as otherwise determined under
this paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(B)(1) shall be increased by 13,489,332 mmBtu
for Nevada and by 1,888,174 mmBtu for Utah, and provided that for the
historical control periods in 2022, 2023, and 2024, the total reported
heat input amounts for Arizona and New Mexico as otherwise determined
under this paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(B)(1) shall be increased by 13,304,261
mmBtu for Arizona and by 62,445 mmBtu for New Mexico;
* * * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) For a unit listed in the document entitled ``Unit-Specific
Ozone Season NOX Emissions Rates for Dynamic Budget
Calculations'' posted at www.regulations.gov in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0668 (applicable to units located within the borders of States listed
in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of this chapter) or the
document entitled ``Unit-Specific Ozone Season NOX Emissions
Rates for Dynamic Budget Calculations for Five Additional States''
posted at www.regulations.gov in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0402
(applicable to units located within the borders of States listed in
Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter), the NOX
emissions rate used in the calculation for the control period shall be
the NOX emissions rate shown for the unit and control period
in the applicable document.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) 0.11, for Arizona for the control periods in 2025 and 2026;
or
(iv) 0.05, for each State for each control period in 2023 and
thereafter except as otherwise specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)
through (iii) of this section.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
Table 6 to Paragraph (e)(3)(i)--State-Level Total Heat Input Used in Calculations of Preset Trading Budgets by Control Period, 2023-2029
[mmBtu]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Arizona........................................... ......... ......... 279,048,607 266,122,691 266,122,691 263,590,069 263,590,069
* * * * * * *
Iowa.............................................. ......... ......... 142,934,126 142,934,126 142,934,126 142,934,126 141,310,860
Kansas............................................ ......... ......... 104,571,293 104,571,293 104,571,293 104,571,293 104,571,293
* * * * * * *
New Mexico........................................ ......... ......... 82,092,237 79,168,874 79,168,874 79,168,874 79,168,874
* * * * * * *
Tennessee......................................... ......... ......... 152,351,271 152,351,271 115,344,086 100,187,179 76,883,950
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
27. Amend Sec. 97.1011 by revising paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(B) and (C)
to read as follows:
Sec. 97.1011 CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowance allocations to
existing units.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) * * *
[[Page 12740]]
(B) For the control periods in 2026 and thereafter, a maximum
controlled baseline under paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(A) of this section
shall apply to any unit combusting any coal or solid coal-derived fuel
during the historical control period for which the unit's heat input
was most recently reported, serving a generator with nameplate capacity
of 100 MW or more, and equipped with selective catalytic reduction
controls, except a circulating fluidized bed boiler.
(C) In addition to the units described in paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(B)
of this section, for the following States and control periods, a
maximum controlled baseline under paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(A) of this
section shall apply to any other unit located within the borders of the
State, combusting any coal or solid coal-derived fuel during the
historical control period for which the unit's heat input was most
recently reported, and serving a generator with nameplate capacity of
100 MW or more, except a circulating fluidized bed boiler:
(1) For a State listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of
this chapter except Alabama, Minnesota, or Wisconsin, the control
periods in 2027 and thereafter.
(2) For State listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter
except Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, or Tennessee, the control periods in
2028 and thereafter.
* * * * *
0
28. Amend Sec. 97.1012 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) and (a)(4)(ii)(B) and (C) to read as follows:
Sec. 97.1012 CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowance allocations to
new units.
(a) Allocations from new unit set-asides. For each control period
in 2021 and thereafter and for the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 units in each State and areas of Indian country within the
borders of the State (except, for the control periods in 2021 and 2022,
areas of Indian country within the borders of the State not subject to
the State's SIP authority), the Administrator will allocate CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances to the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 units as follows:
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) The first control period for which the State within whose
borders the unit is located is listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A),
(B), (C), or (E) of this chapter;
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) For the control periods in 2024 and thereafter, a maximum
controlled baseline under paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A) of this section shall
apply to any unit combusting any coal or solid coal-derived fuel during
the control period, serving a generator with nameplate capacity of 100
MW or more, and equipped with selective catalytic reduction controls on
or before September 30 of the preceding control period, except a
circulating fluidized bed boiler.
(C) In addition to the units described in paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(B)
of this section, for the following States and control periods, a
maximum controlled baseline under paragraph (a)(4)(ii)(A) of this
section shall apply to any other unit located within the borders of the
State, combusting any coal or solid coal-derived fuel during the
control period, and serving a generator with nameplate capacity of 100
MW or more, except a circulating fluidized bed boiler:
(1) For a State listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of
this chapter except Alabama, Minnesota, or Wisconsin, the control
periods in 2027 and thereafter.
(2) For a State listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter
except Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, or Tennessee, the control periods in
2028 and thereafter.
* * * * *
0
29. Amend Sec. 97.1021 by:
0
a. In paragraph (a), removing ``period in 2021.'' and adding in its
place ``periods in 2021 and 2022.'';
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b), (d), and (e);
0
c. In paragraph (f), removing ``July 1, 2024'' and adding in its place
``July 1, 2026''; and
0
d. Revising paragraph (h).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 97.1021 Recordation of CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowance
allocations and auction results.
* * * * *
(b) By September 5, 2023, the Administrator will record in each
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 source's compliance account
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances allocated to
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 units at the source in
accordance with Sec. 97.1011(a)(1) for the control periods in 2023 and
2024.
* * * * *
(d) By July 1, 2024, or, for sources located within a State listed
in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter, by [30 DAYS AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], the Administrator will record in each
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 source's compliance account
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances allocated to
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 units at the source in
accordance with Sec. 97.1011(a)(1) for the control period in 2025.
(e) By July 1, 2025, the Administrator will record in each CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 source's compliance account the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances allocated to the
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 units at the source in
accordance with Sec. 97.1011(a)(1) for the control period in 2026,
unless the State in which the source is located is listed in Sec.
52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter and notifies the Administrator in
writing by [15 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], of the State's
intent to submit to the Administrator a complete SIP revision by April
1, 2025, meeting the requirements of Sec. 52.38(b)(10)(i) through (iv)
of this chapter.
(1) If, by April 1, 2025, the State does not submit to the
Administrator such complete SIP revision, the Administrator will record
by July 1, 2025, in each CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
source's compliance account the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group
3 allowances allocated to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
units at the source in accordance with Sec. 97.1011(a)(1) for the
control period in 2026.
(2) If the State submits to the Administrator by April 1, 2025, and
the Administrator approves by October 1, 2025, such complete SIP
revision, the Administrator will record by October 1, 2025, in each
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 source's compliance account
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances allocated to
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 units at the source as
provided in such approved, complete SIP revision for the control period
in 2026.
(3) If the State submits to the Administrator by April 1, 2025, and
the Administrator does not approve by October 1, 2025, such complete
SIP revision, the Administrator will record by October 1, 2025, in each
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 source's compliance account
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowances allocated to
the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 units at the source in
accordance with Sec. 97.1011(a)(1) for the control period in 2026.
* * * * *
(h) By July 1, 2024, or, for sources located within a State listed
in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter, by [30 DAYS AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], and by July 1 of each year thereafter,
the Administrator will
[[Page 12741]]
record in each CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 source's
compliance account the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
allowances allocated to the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3
units at the source in accordance with Sec. 97.1011(a)(2) for the
control period in the year after the year of the applicable recordation
deadline under this paragraph (h).
* * * * *
0
30. Amend Sec. 97.1024 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(3)(i) and (ii); and
0
b. In paragraph (c)(2)(ii), removing ``Sec. 97.526(d) or Sec.
97.826(d) or (e), in'' and adding in its place ``Sec. 97.526 or Sec.
97.826, in''.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 97.1024 Compliance with CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 primary
emissions limitation; backstop daily NOX emissions rate.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Two times the sum, for all CSAPR NOX Ozone Season
Group 3 units at the source to which the backstop daily NOX
emissions rate applies for the control period under paragraph (b)(3) of
this section, of any excess over 50 tons for such a unit of the sum
(converted to tons at a conversion factor of 2,000 lb/ton and rounded
to the nearest ton), for all calendar days in the control period, of
any amount by which the unit's NOX emissions for a given
calendar day in pounds exceed the product in pounds of the unit's total
heat input in mmBtu for that calendar day multiplied by 0.14 lb/mmBtu;
or
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) For the following States and control periods, the backstop
daily NOX emissions rate shall apply to any CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 unit located within the borders of
the State, combusting any coal or solid coal-derived fuel during the
control period, serving a generator with nameplate capacity of 100 MW
or more, and equipped with selective catalytic reduction controls on or
before September 30 of the preceding control period, except a
circulating fluidized bed boiler:
(A) For a State listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of
this chapter, the control periods in 2024 and thereafter.
(B) For a State listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this
chapter, the control periods in 2026 and thereafter.
(ii) In addition to the units described in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of
this section, for each control period in 2030 and thereafter, the
backstop daily NOX emissions rate shall apply to any other
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 unit located with the borders
of a State except Alabama, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico,
Tennessee, or Wisconsin, combusting any coal or solid coal-derived fuel
during the control period, and serving a generator with nameplate
capacity of 100 MW or more, except a circulating fluidized bed boiler.
* * * * *
Sec. 97.1025 [Amended]
0
31. Amend Sec. 97.1025(c)(1) introductory text by adding ``in 2024 or
thereafter'' after ``control period''.
0
32. Amend Sec. 97.1026 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(ii) introductory text; and
0
b. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(iii).
The revision and addition read as follows:
Sec. 97.1026 Banking and conversion; bank recalibration.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowance bank
ceiling target for the control period in the year of the deadline under
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, calculated as the product, rounded to
the nearest allowance, of the sum for all States identified for the
control period in paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of this section of the State
NOX Ozone Season Group 3 trading budgets under Sec.
97.1010(a) for such States for such control period multiplied by--
* * * * *
(iii) The States whose trading budgets will be included in the
calculation of the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 3 allowance
bank ceiling target for each control period are as follows:
(A) For the control periods in 2024 and 2025, the States listed in
Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) of this chapter.
(B) For the control periods in 2026 and thereafter, the States
listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(A) through (C) and (E) of this
chapter.
* * * * *
0
33. Amend Sec. 97.1030 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii), removing ``or'' after the semicolon;
0
b. In paragraph (b)(1)(iv), removing the period and adding in its place
``; or''; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(v).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 97.1030 General monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) May 1, 2025, for a unit in a State (and Indian country within
the borders of such State) listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this
chapter;
* * * * *
0
34. Amend Sec. 97.1034 by:
0
a. In paragraph (d)(2)(i)(B), removing ``or'' after the semicolon;
0
b. In paragraph (d)(2)(i)(C), adding ``or'' after the semicolon; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (d)(2)(i)(D).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 97.1034 Recordkeeping and reporting.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) The calendar quarter covering May 1, 2025, through June 30,
2025, for a unit in a State (and Indian country within the borders of
such State) listed in Sec. 52.38(b)(2)(iii)(E) of this chapter;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-01064 Filed 2-15-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P